HarveyK400 I heard the P30CH twin 375-hp alternator sets were nothing but trouble keeping them in phase.
I heard the P30CH twin 375-hp alternator sets were nothing but trouble keeping them in phase.
That's what I heard, too.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Thanks for the update, Chris.
oltmannd blue streak 1: 4. VIA on the other hand decided to use 575V and 300 Amps (?). This gave VIA capability to run their 24 car trains today. 3 phase 480VAC is an easy choice since that is a commercial standard. I have seen 19 Amfleet behind a pair of P30CHs, once upon a time. The P30CHs each had 2 smallish engine gens sets for HEP and could "MU" with others in the consist.
blue streak 1: 4. VIA on the other hand decided to use 575V and 300 Amps (?). This gave VIA capability to run their 24 car trains today.
4. VIA on the other hand decided to use 575V and 300 Amps (?). This gave VIA capability to run their 24 car trains today.
3 phase 480VAC is an easy choice since that is a commercial standard. I have seen 19 Amfleet behind a pair of P30CHs, once upon a time. The P30CHs each had 2 smallish engine gens sets for HEP and could "MU" with others in the consist.
@Blue Streak: wouldn't this be 3,000 amps, or did I get the conversion wrong? And wouldn't a separate and isolated mid-train auxiliary power car be needed both to handle the amperage and voltage drop?
You bring up the 2 questions that are supposely being addressed by Amtrak. But first the 480V system was a natural choice for station power. By connecting regular 240V transformers together using delta connections 480V - 3 phase AC is available. That reduces commercial costs not needing special transformers.
1. The inability of present locomotives to parallel their HEP was only addressed by the P-30s. It is a simple thing to do as airplanes have been doing it since the early 1960s. [ however it might take an additional control cable?
2. Paralleling would not be needed if new locos have HEP inverters built with enough capacity.
3. The other problem is HEP cabling and connectors. When Amtrak decided to use the commuter rail HEP standards there was no anticipation of long passenger consists.
4. Amtrak has addressed this problem on at least the AutoTrain consists by rewiring the cars with larger cables for a higher amperage. I have been told that as Superliner cars come in for major overhaul their cabling is beefed up. When and if this has started I do not know. If this is also being done on Single level equipment I do not know.
5. IMHO the short term solution is to either place a rebuilt F-40 [ cabbage ] with HEP generator or at least 1 P-42 at end of passenger consist to operate pull - pull?
HarveyK400I have to ask what happened to the newer LRCs? Last thing I heard some time ago was that the active tilting was being disabled.
LRC cars are definately still extensively used between Windsor-Toronto-Montreal as well. The newer "Renaissance" equipment aquired from Britain is mostly used east of Toronto.
Some of the LRC cars are undergoing refurbishment, at least 2 have been completed so far, and are painted in a slightly modified scheme with the bottom portion repainted a green colour similar to VIA's rebuilt F40PH-2D locomotives instead of the original blue.
Chris van der Heide
My Algoma Central Railway Modeling Blog
blue streak 1 4. VIA on the other hand decided to use 575V and 300 Amps (?). This gave VIA capability to run their 24 car trains today.
Via does not have the station track capacity problem that Amtrak has at Chicago Union Station. VIA is thoroughly aware of the advantages of double-deck cars because of their use by GO transit that shares Toronto Union Statoin with VIA and operates over some of the same tracks. VIA picked up the ex-Cunnel equipment for just about scrap prices. Even though rebuilding costs more than expecfed, expecially after problems required fixing, they still felt they got a bargain.
cv_acr VIA also uses rebuilt Budd coaches extensively on their primary "Corridor" (Windsor-Toronto-Montreal) routes, not just on the Canadian.
VIA also uses rebuilt Budd coaches extensively on their primary "Corridor" (Windsor-Toronto-Montreal) routes, not just on the Canadian.
I have to ask what happened to the newer LRCs? Last thing I heard some time ago was that the active tilting was being disabled.
Given the length of at least some Tornto-Montreal trains, wouldn't double-deck cars be considered? I can't imagine there would be a clearance issue.
Dragoman And retention toilets couldn't have been a part of refurbishment/rebuild of the Budd (and other similar) heritage cars?
And retention toilets couldn't have been a part of refurbishment/rebuild of the Budd (and other similar) heritage cars?
All of VIA's rebuilt cars definately have them.
Bjorn88 The Canadian is certainly a very fine train, but it is a very limited service compared to Amtrak long distance trains. It carries only a few coaches and the sleeping accommodations are priced so high that only upscale foreign tourists are likely to use them. It's very good for what it is, an upscale tourist experience, but is not actually useful as transportation. RvW, Iowa
The Canadian is certainly a very fine train, but it is a very limited service compared to Amtrak long distance trains. It carries only a few coaches and the sleeping accommodations are priced so high that only upscale foreign tourists are likely to use them. It's very good for what it is, an upscale tourist experience, but is not actually useful as transportation.
RvW, Iowa
As an adjunct to the tourist market, the Canadian still affords transportation opportunities along it's route however narrow its reach may be.
Via Rails Budd cars have had all Abestos Insulation removed during there rebuilds and all have retention toilets.
Al - in - Stockton
DMUinCT Paul Milenkovic: "Amtraks biggest mistake was not keeping the domes and many of the other Budd cars and giving them rebuilds like Via Rail did. " Two words. Retention. Toilets. Two more words, Asbestos Insulation
Paul Milenkovic: "Amtraks biggest mistake was not keeping the domes and many of the other Budd cars and giving them rebuilds like Via Rail did. " Two words. Retention. Toilets.
"Amtraks biggest mistake was not keeping the domes and many of the other Budd cars and giving them rebuilds like Via Rail did. "
Two words.
Retention. Toilets.
Two more words, Asbestos Insulation
With all respect, toilets and asbestos issues were not insurmountable as Canada has shown. I believe the priorities for capacity and hep were the decision-drivers, especially for the Everywhere Zephyr, Empire Builder, and to some extent the Sunset/Eagle.
If Superliner bedrooms can have toilets, so can economy rooms. This might allow more revenue space on the lower level. I think it's important for the future to have an entrance door in the center of the car. More on that some other time.
It seems the Zephyr sections with limited capacity west of Salt Lake City were especially uneconomical and couldn't meet demand, and running separate trains would be a burden on capacity of the mostly single-tracked Denver - Salt Lake City route. Amtrak chose to focus on Chicago - Oakland with alternatives from Chicago to Southern California and the Pacific Northwest. The Desert Wind would restore much-needed service to Las Vegas and provide inter-regional connectivity; but this would add another train through Cajon. While the Pioneer also would provide inter-regional connectivity, there only are a few small intermediate markets of opportunity. It seems the missing link would be Denver - Fort Worth/Dallas - Houston - New Orleans.
That may be possible. I suppose blocks of space could be held throughout the train for such small stops with fewer than about five boardings. That number needs some evaluation with respect to dwell time which should be kept under a minute, even using a lift.
Paul Milenkovic "Amtraks biggest mistake was not keeping the domes and many of the other Budd cars and giving them rebuilds like Via Rail did. " Two words. Retention. Toilets.
Don U. TCA 73-5735
Using all of that available computer-distributed car and seat assignment software, can't all of the passengers boarding or disembarking at a particular intermediate station be assigned to one or two particuilar cars, and spot those cars at the shorter platforms? I have seen this technique used in Europe.
I've been on the warpath about Amtrak boarding practices at stations and resulting unacceptable dwell time for a long while. That, and the problem of packing passengers in as few cars as needed, can be resolved with computer-distributed car and seat assignment. Airlines do it; so how hard would it be to modify software for Amtrak use?
Here's the real deal: hep limits train size to 11 cars without getting into the complication of a second auxiliary power car (or locomotive) at the end or middle of the train. And more passengers can be carried on bi-levels than on a single-level train of a fixed length.
I also suspect that total train resistance for Superliners is less per seat; and this equates to an energy savings.
All the empty windows with packing passengers in as few cars as possible isn't very reassuring to a public that is skeptical about whether Amtrak is needed. Within reason, I also can understand the savings from turning off the lights and hvac and the decision to deadhead cars instead of switching them in and out.
[quote user="passengerfan"]
Amtraks biggest mistake was not keeping the domes and many of the other Budd cars and giving them rebuilds like Via Rail did. I have ridden the Canadian when it was originally CP and went via Calgary and have ridden under Via on three trips and have to report that this train beats anything we have here and that includes the Superliner equipped trains and I have traveled on every Superliner route.
[/quote
I only suspect that the decision to not rebuild the domes was rooted in several issues.
1. To carry the same number of passengers would have required a train length of 18 - 22 single level cars depending on season and route.
2. When AMTRAK decided on HEP and later the rebuilding of the Heritage cars they used the commmuter RR standards (probably C&NW and BN).
3. This was 480V 3 phase AC with current capability of about 200 amps through the cables. This limited AMTRAK to about 14 -16 (?) cars.
5. The SDP-40s and first F-40s (how many ?) also had a HEP capability of 500KW (?).
6. When AMTRAK decided to re equip AUTO Train. The Superliner was chosen as single level rebuilt passenger cars would limit # of cars for AT.
7. The AT Superliners rapidly reached their limit and all indications are that at all phase 3 rebuilds of all cars (SL & BL) have higher capacity cabling (?). That has allowed Auto Train to go to 18 passenger cars including 3 diners.
8. The limit now appears that most (?) locos do not have the power capacity for the higher HEP load (?).
9. The new electrics on order do have that capability but exactly what?.
10. Does anyone have the load capability of the various cars, locos, and motors not only as built but rebuilt? Suspect AEM-7 DCs have less capacity the AEM-ACs.
passengerfan Amtraks biggest mistake was not keeping the domes and many of the other Budd cars and giving them rebuilds like Via Rail did.
Amtraks biggest mistake was not keeping the domes and many of the other Budd cars and giving them rebuilds like Via Rail did.
Perhaps they should have. But the difference was that Amtrak had to have cars for several (more than 4) western train routes, while VIA only had to equip one. Amtrak would still have had to buy new equipment.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
I don't know how much those who began Amtrak didn't know about what they were doing but they were handed a bunch of engines, and cars and old schedules and maps and told to figure it out without help. It was a big job to swallow overnight especially when some put in charge were not railroaders but business executives and managers. There is a feeling in this country that a salesman can sell anythng he's given even if he knows nothing about the product and anybody who has managed anyone can manage everyone; experience in a given field is not considerd
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 ... I have found out that those that do usually know what they are doing and why.
... I have found out that those that do usually know what they are doing and why.
You are so right, Henry -- at least, most of the time.
The problem is, so many seem to believe that those who set up & first ran Amtrak really did not know what they were doing (or did, but had alterior motives other than actually preserving and expanding US passenger rail), so that trying to second-guess their early decisions, with the gift of hindsight, feels so easy and justified!
Decsions on that were based on marketing research and investment accounting. It may in fact have been cheaper to buy new based on investment accounting. And I believe I read somewhere in the pasat that Superliners were preferred by passengers over regular coach. As for operation, one man one car instead of two and two; one car two carloads; I am sure there is a lot of thought and research into these decsions before being made. LIke the time I told the plumber his guys should use bigger shovels and he pointed out that they got more done, were less tired, and took fewer breaks with the standard spade than with the larger shovel I suggested. I have found out that those that do usually know what they are doing and why.
And retention toilets couldn't have been a part of refurbishment/rebuild of the Budd (and other similar) heritage cars? And still have provided an as-good or better product at less cost, for at least part of the fleet (which is what I gather would be the case, from those who have ridden both Superliners and the Canadian)?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
It would have saved the taxpayers millions of dollars to rebuild the old Budd equipment and be using that today on some of the Superliner routes. The California Zephyr would be a perfect train for passengers today with five or six Budd domes for the passengers. I rode many of the pre Amtrak trains Empire Builder, North Coast Limited, City of San Francisco, Super Chief, Sunset Ltd. Cascade, California Zephyr and others and except for the Sunset most had domes and the lounges on the Superliners can't compare as they are lacking that forward view. If Canada was able to rebuild the Budd cars we could have done the same here and saved the American taxpayer millions. But Amtrak was to anxious to retire the Heritage cars and put Superliners in service as replacements and I can remember all of the problems with plumbing etc. that plaqued the Superliner ones, it wasn't until they were rebuilt to superliner two standards that they finally became decent pieces of equipment.
It would do every Superliner fan a good lesson to take one trip on the Canadian and compare the two and I would almost bet that 90% of the passengers would prefer the Budd cars.
I also believe that if the accident in Nevada had occurred with Budd cars instead of the Superliners damage to the train would have been less. This accident destroyed two Superliners and heavily damaged a third. I think the old Budd cars were of heavier construction than the Superliers as far as the Stainless steel car sides and I doubt the truck would have penetrated the Budd cars.
I know those are long distances and you want comfort, but can they remake things to exchange some comfort for more speed and more safety?
The priority should be safe transit on a dedicated guideway away from grade crossings and freight trains. Then the trains could be run faster, like commuter trains, so people can use Amtrak like a commuter service, everywhere, not just the Northwest corridor.
Andrew
Watch my videos on-line at https://www.youtube.com/user/AndrewNeilFalconer
Some Superliners are over 30 years old. No wonder!
In my opinion, the Superliners are much more comfortable than whatever they use on the Northeast Corridor on the regional trains. They are not bad, but the Superliner coach seats are quite comfortable (at least for a relatively short trip (e.g. Galesburg to Chicago).
The Roomettes are really not comfortable at all - at least it assured relatively clean bathrooms - and really, during most of the daylight hours on the trip we took, we were in the lounge or the diner anyway.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.