I am reading James McCommons and James Kunstler's "Waiting on a Train" and the section about the Northeast Corridor and the Acela quotes Don Phillips as saying that the Acela was not allowed to run push-pull so they have a power car on both ends resulting in gross overpowering. He also alleges that with push-pull they might have been able to extend the length of Acela trains to accomodate more passengers.
I know Phillips has lots of inside information, including the infamous "la cochon" quote from Alstom/Bombardier engineers he was chatting with "on the ballast" during testing, but can this really be true?
I, for one, am amazed that push-pull is actually allowed on any train. My own intuition says they're reckless. The Chatsworth accident points this out once more to us but we still allow it. I know that ballast avoids many dangers but, still, intuition and common sense says push-pull isn't safe.
Is it really that hard to run around a train in a terminal? Honestly? Is there a union thing here? What are the numbers that make running around so impossible that we allow push-pull trains?
Is the Acela really overpowered, or are the power cars derated to save energy anyway? I mean, they female dog about its weight and things like that, but hey, it's got two power cars anyway, so who cares? Does TGV run in push-pull?
I'd love to know your thoughts.
Consider that some of the earliest TEE trainsets in Europe were diesel push-pulls. See the example of ONR's "Northlander", which was a push-pull. Push-pulls are hardly reckless, they have been operated safely in the Chicago area in suburban service since about 1959. Also consider that electric MU cars and RDC's have operated safely without the "protection" of a locomotive.
Turnarounds in a terminal with only one locomotive would require additional moves through the station throat to get a locomotive on the other end. As an example: 1, a train arrives at the stub-end terminal and the locomotive is cut off from the consist; 2, a second locomotive (pointed in the correct direction) is moved through the throat to be cut on to the same consist; 3, train departs at appropriate time; 4, first locomotive is backed through the station throat for servicing and turning.
Real-life example of a quick turnaround on a push-pull involving my ride home. Inbound suburban run on Metra's Southwest Service arrives Chicago Union Station at 5:04 PM. Passengers are unloaded and the engineer changes ends from the control cab to the locomotive (always on the outbound end). Passengers for the outbound run are loaded and the train departs at 5:18 PM.
I am assuming that the Acela power cars are rated at 6000 continuous HP each. That doesn't mean that they are always drawing enough electricity while operating to produce that rating if less horsepower is needed to maintain the schedule. I have also read that the power cars have the high continuous rating to allow for longer trains if demand and available equipment require it.
The Turboliners, which ran very successfully in the Empire Corridor for over 20 years, were "push-pull" as were all of the RTG's running in France. To the best of my knowledge, that feature was never a roblem.
Just to be clear, “push-pull” refers to a train with motive power (diesel or electric) on only one end and a cab-car (usually a coach with an engineer’s cab built into one end) on the opposite end. The cab in the cab-car can control the motive power via electric cables run through each car back to the motive power. All of the turbine powered trainsets run in revenue service by Amtrak, United Aircraft, ANF & Rohr, had motive power (power cars) on each end; ergo they were not true push-pull trainsets. As regards Mr. McCommons excellent opus, on page 81 we read, “Running an engine at each end, the Acela is ‘semi-permanently coupled,’ so adding coaches-which Amtrak does not have anyway-would be difficult and time-consuming.” Not being push-pull is not the issue. The Acela sets were designed to run as permanent sets with a specific number of cars. Separating them is much more involved than uncoupling conventional equipment. This also greatly reduces the degree of flexibility of the Acela fleet, i.e. lengthening or shortening trains to follow passenger demand. As regards why Acela was not designed push-pull, one has to go back to 1987. Amtrak Metroliners were operating at 125 mph with AEM-7 electrics and Amfleet cars. They were working to convert original Metroliner multiple-unit coaches from 1967 into de-motored cab-cars. Then on January 4, 1987 an Amtrak train crashed into a standing set of freight locomotives near Chase, MD. Many changes came to railroading in the aftermath of this including a moratorium on cab-cars in high speed service. (If memory serves, the limit imposed was a maximum of 110 mph.) One of the stipulations for what would become the Acela program would be a power car at each end. Ironically, one of the high-speed test sets brought over from Europe in 1993, the X2000, operated in push-pull configuration; it necessitated a waiver from the FRA. It was running in ‘push’ mode when it hit 155 mph in a test on the Northeast Corridor.
Just to be clear, “push-pull” refers to a train with motive power (diesel or electric) on only one end and a cab-car (usually a coach with an engineer’s cab built into one end) on the opposite end. The cab in the cab-car can control the motive power via electric cables run through each car back to the motive power. All of the turbine powered trainsets run in revenue service by Amtrak, United Aircraft, ANF & Rohr, had motive power (power cars) on each end; ergo they were not true push-pull trainsets.
As regards Mr. McCommons excellent opus, on page 81 we read, “Running an engine at each end, the Acela is ‘semi-permanently coupled,’ so adding coaches-which Amtrak does not have anyway-would be difficult and time-consuming.” Not being push-pull is not the issue. The Acela sets were designed to run as permanent sets with a specific number of cars. Separating them is much more involved than uncoupling conventional equipment. This also greatly reduces the degree of flexibility of the Acela fleet, i.e. lengthening or shortening trains to follow passenger demand.
As regards why Acela was not designed push-pull, one has to go back to 1987. Amtrak Metroliners were operating at 125 mph with AEM-7 electrics and Amfleet cars. They were working to convert original Metroliner multiple-unit coaches from 1967 into de-motored cab-cars. Then on January 4, 1987 an Amtrak train crashed into a standing set of freight locomotives near Chase, MD. Many changes came to railroading in the aftermath of this including a moratorium on cab-cars in high speed service. (If memory serves, the limit imposed was a maximum of 110 mph.) One of the stipulations for what would become the Acela program would be a power car at each end.
Ironically, one of the high-speed test sets brought over from Europe in 1993, the X2000, operated in push-pull configuration; it necessitated a waiver from the FRA. It was running in ‘push’ mode when it hit 155 mph in a test on the Northeast Corridor.
Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak
aegrotatio,
View the Holland webcam (the one with both the audio and video). Most of their standard intercity expresses run push-pull on highly congested track with street crossings. So at least the Dutch aren't worried about it.
Aren't the two power cars used for quick acceleration?
"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood." Daniel Burnham
Tail wagging the dog. Train was designed to fit a legislated running times on NEC. This necessitated very high HP/ton.
An interesting comparison would be scheduled time for Acela vs. Regional between stations east of New Haven. Exactly what does the extra 5000 HP and 25 mph max get you? At what cost?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Acela - non stop NH to Providence - 1:26
Regional - 4 intermediate stops NH to Providence - 1:44
If each stop costs you 3 minutes, then Acela saves 6 minutes.
Acela 12300 HP, 623 tons, 304 seats, HP/ton = 20. HP/seat = 40,
Typical Regional Train 6 Amfleet + 1 AEM7
7000 HP, 430 tons, 475 seats. HP/ton = 16. HP/seat = 15
H
All the politics about high speed potential when it's the average speed that really counts.
I hope we won't spend another $3 billion to save 5 minutes.
Yes! The average speed is more important than top speed. Especially here in the US where we are very dollar conscious. It may sound silly but the best way to get the best time is to not stop the train. But it isn't as silly as it sounds. Both the NYC and the NH caught on early to that theory and MNRR continues the operation: run express GCT to Harmon on the Hudson Line, White Plains on the Harlem, and Stamford in CT with locals on the opposite half hour or whatever. NYC's MTA subway system also did the same: four track lines with local trains on the outside tracks, expresses on the middle pair. Locals stop every station, expresses every fifth or so stations. People ride local to express stop, change to express or ride express as far as possible and change to local to get to own stop. Our obsession is with attaining rather than maintaining high speeds. It can be done. We just have to think it through, draw up the plan, work it through, and leave the politics out of it.
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.
That's one way. The other is to speed up the really slow spots. Signalling a station track so that trains can arrive at medium speed instead of restricted speed (and medium speed for the whole block prior) can shave off as much time as running many miles at a faster speed. Same goes for having signaled passing sidings instead of having to creep in and out at restricted speed.
I think the best approach is to list out all the possible improvements and then rank them on cost vs. amount of improvement, then work down the list as the money becomes available. Even competing proposals can be scored this way. e.g. Do I ease 20 curves in this 50 mile segment to allow 110 mph or do I do a complete realignment of the 50 miles for 150 mph?
oltmannd That's one way. The other is to speed up the really slow spots. Signalling a station track so that trains can arrive at medium speed instead of restricted speed (and medium speed for the whole block prior) can shave off as much time as running many miles at a faster speed. Same goes for having signaled passing sidings instead of having to creep in and out at restricted speed. I think the best approach is to list out all the possible improvements and then rank them on cost vs. amount of improvement, then work down the list as the money becomes available. Even competing proposals can be scored this way. e.g. Do I ease 20 curves in this 50 mile segment to allow 110 mph or do I do a complete realignment of the 50 miles for 150 mph?
Longer turnouts and better signaling certainly can offer some improvement.
Easing curves and new alignments would help; but would wider track centers along the NEC be more doable to allow full tilting along the existing alignment? This might avoid the costly and politically-charged property acquisition involved in the other alternatives.
Another aspect I've railed against are the time-consuming boarding procedures here in the Midwest compared to Metra. The small crew checks tickets and IDs (thanks in no small part to HS) at just a couple doors, significantly increasing the dwell time at larger stations. Each minute of additional dwell time negates 5 miles of 110 mph running.
oltmannd Acela - non stop NH to Providence - 1:26 Regional - 4 intermediate stops NH to Providence - 1:44 If each stop costs you 3 minutes, then Acela saves 6 minutes. Acela 12300 HP, 623 tons, 304 seats, HP/ton = 20. HP/seat = 40, Typical Regional Train 6 Amfleet + 1 AEM7 7000 HP, 430 tons, 475 seats. HP/ton = 16. HP/seat = 15 H
Maybe Amtrak should meter the power consumption, figure the cost, and revisit the Congressional decision on schedules? And why we need two kinds of electric locomotives in the Fleet Plan rather than merging production for greater efficiency?
TIming trains and timing service is two different things. THe overall service is what has to be addressed. Boston-NY-Phil-DC. are your major points. New Haven to Providence means nothing in the overall service. Each minute saved anyplace adds up in the overall service. BOston to Philadelphia or even Providence to Philadelphia is what counts. And in today's world, it is what most people look at. No, the cost difference between New Haven and NYP is certainly not worth the MNRR difference to GCT unless I were going to Philadelphia. And the cost difference between Regional and Acela NH to NYP can be great or it can be very close depending on train, time, and how far in advance you buy your ticket. Several weeks ago on line Acela cost for Sat. NH to NYP was something like $75 several days in advance, Regional $35. On that Sat. afternoon the prices were close to $150 and $55 at train time. So, the service is what the individual is buying at the specific time, not minutes between stations. Don't think about running trains but marketing and providing a service.
oltmannd I think the best approach is to list out all the possible improvements and then rank them on cost vs. amount of improvement, then work down the list as the money becomes available. Even competing proposals can be scored this way. e.g. Do I ease 20 curves in this 50 mile segment to allow 110 mph or do I do a complete realignment of the 50 miles for 150 mph?
I have felt the same. One way to score any improvements is passenger minutes saved.
So if I can spend $1M to save 10M pass minutes a year then that would be a better improvement than one that saves 1M passenger minutes a year for $1M? This is direct operational cost benefit.
Crew costs might also be considered if less time would mean less crew cost the same way?
Less equipment required for service could also be considered in a corridor such as the NEC.
One item very hard to quantify would be the additional passengers attracted to a route when less time is required???
I've watched the boarding process on Amtrak here in the midwest the last two weekends. Last Saturday was a farce. About 70 people got on in Bloomington and the train was stopped for almost 15 minutes to get everyone aboard. There were two doors open on a six car train and one of them was only to board business class (1 person that I saw). To top it off, one of the cars was completely empty. However, when you only have two employees, not counting the cafe car attendant, how many doors can you open, probably only two. But, if you put the business class/cafe car in the middle of the train, you could board more people through both open doors. I wonder if on-board personnel ever talk to the people who make up the trains?
atsfkid I've watched the boarding process on Amtrak here in the midwest the last two weekends. Last Saturday was a farce. About 70 people got on in Bloomington and the train was stopped for almost 15 minutes to get everyone aboard. There were two doors open on a six car train and one of them was only to board business class (1 person that I saw). To top it off, one of the cars was completely empty. However, when you only have two employees, not counting the cafe car attendant, how many doors can you open, probably only two. But, if you put the business class/cafe car in the middle of the train, you could board more people through both open doors. I wonder if on-board personnel ever talk to the people who make up the trains?
In 15 minutes, the trainman who let the one bus class guy one could have gone down and opened another trap. But, that would involve paying attention to customer service....
...you can build a high level platform for a lot less than you can straighten a track, put in and maintain a high speed turnout, maintain class 5 track over an above class 4, signal an signaled siding, or purchase tilt trains.
We might not need to go so fast if we just paid more attention to not being stopped.
Manual doorstep traps? What century are we in?
I've never heard of a manual trap on commuter equipment (or the California Cars). Like the gruff Metra conductor addressing the "occasional commuter" paused at the top of the steps with a long line of people behind her, "OK ma'am, decide right or decide wrong, but decide something."
Oh, these are "intercity trains", not "commuter trains." Might learn something from the commuter trains, though.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
You don't seem to get around too much, South Shore's cars have traps because they deal with both floor-level and ground-level platforms.
Paul Milenkovic Manual doorstep traps? What century are we in? I've never heard of a manual trap on commuter equipment (or the California Cars). Like the gruff Metra conductor addressing the "occasional commuter" paused at the top of the steps with a long line of people behind her, "OK ma'am, decide right or decide wrong, but decide something." Oh, these are "intercity trains", not "commuter trains." Might learn something from the commuter trains, though.
All passenger cars that have traditional end of car vestibules and floor height that need to operate at high level and low level platforms have traps. Amfleet and Horizon cars are all this way.
The exceptions would be Gallery cars that have mid-car doors that straddle the center sill and Superliner/California Cars that are of a well design and have low platform height doors.
The original Metroliner cars did not have traps and could only stop at high level platforms. The Budd M1, M2 et. al. had center doors and needed high level platforms.
Septa's new Silverliner Vs have bizzare mid-car doors that can work both high level and low level platforms.
It would seem that high level platforms are the ideal except they preclude Gallery cars, Superliners and Talgo equipment completely.
Note on opening side by side vestibule doors: there is a vestibule at only one end of some cars therefore it would behoov the yardmaster or whoever makes up a train to see that makeup would have the doors together if possible.
And yes, commuter equipment, Heritage equipment, and contemporary inter city equipment are breeds apart in many ways.
Hi-level platforms do not preclude the use of bi-level gallery coaches. IC/Metra has had them in service as electric MU cars since 1972 and South Shore's 300-series cars are gallery coaches.
I wonder if existing gallery coaches could be modified with a plate to fit over the steps to bring it level with a higher-level platform?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm I wonder if existing gallery coaches could be modified with a plate to fit over the steps to bring it level with a higher-level platform?
Probably not. The floor level on Metra's gallery coaches is lower than the standard floor level. The difference is noticeable as you walk between cars since you step up to the diaphragm as you leave the car and then step down as you enter the next car. On the IC MU coaches, there is a short ramp from the center vestibule to the floor of the coach.
henry6 Note on opening side by side vestibule doors: there is a vestibule at only one end of some cars therefore it would behoov the yardmaster or whoever makes up a train to see that makeup would have the doors together if possible. And yes, commuter equipment, Heritage equipment, and contemporary inter city equipment are breeds apart in many ways.
There is no restriction on push-pull , not even for high speed.
the FRA rules for Tier II (high speed) do however require a unoccupied(passengers) on head end as shield vehicle.
A Acela with a dead power car can still run at full speed as long as all other equipment works.
The X-2000 was not considered a viable candidate unless a unoccupied cab car or second power car was used.
The ACELA was designed so one power car could move train at normal service speeds even if other power car was dead and even if later 4 more cars were added to consist.
Thanks for the information. So, theoretically, if Acela ran push-pull, the leading cab car has to be vacant? When MARC runs its HHP-8 on the NEC to 120+ MPH, if the HHP-8 is pushing, is that lead cab car devoid of passengers, too?
And since our discussion drifted to doors, I have to say that I dislike the high-platform-only, mid-car doors on Metro-North and the horribly tiny, miniature, car-end doors for low platforms. I almost missed a stop not knowing anything about the special push button at the end of the car and the suicidally steep stairs on those car-end doors. Can't they all have center doors that can handle low and high platforms? Feh!!
No one seems to have mentioned that the Amtrak Cascades Talgo trainsets operating between Eugene, OR and Vancouver, B.C. are operated in a push-pull configuration, with de-powered F40s used as cab-cars and F59s as power (usually; sometimes a Genesis).
If I remember correctly, and I rode them, both the United Aircraft Turbotrain and the Rohr French design were not push-pull but definitely had power cars on both ends. Other lightweights, like the current Talgo, the GM train, and the New Haven Roger Williams were neither push-pull nor dual-direction. The Budd Daniel Webster was mu-diesel and bidirectional .
My understanding also is that the latest Frrench high speed trains have traction motors under several cars other than the front and rear units, that the tractive effort is distributred through the train rather than concentrated at the ends. Similar to mu operaton, and many interurban lines and rapid trainsit lines did have "non-driving motors" as well as "control trailers."
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.