AMTRAKKER Perhaps I am out of the loop.... What is controversial about the baggage cars?
Perhaps I am out of the loop....
What is controversial about the baggage cars?
Prior to this weekend's announcement on state agencies making a pooled purchase of bi-level coaches, the most recent passenger train purchase was an Amtrak contract to purchase single-level cars, suitable for interoperation on the Northeast Corridor (NEC). The contract specified that the train car operate at 125 MPH, even though this equipment is mainly for the Florida long-distance (Silver Service) and other trains operating into Penn Station.
The idea is that Amtrak doesn't want slow trains on the NEC slowing down their fast trains. Sensible idea on the face of it. As a result, a large portion of the Amtrak contract was to acquire 125 MPH-capable baggage cars.
Many view this as a sensible and necessary thing for Amtrak to do -- if Amtrak wants to continue the Silver Service, which are popular long-distance trains, and if Amtrak doesn't want those trains to present a bottleneck on the NEC, high-speed baggage cars are needed.
The question, however, was that Amtrak's first new car purchase in since forever included a large purchase of non-revenue cars (the baggage cars). The thought was offered that aging hand-me-down Amcoaches could be converted to baggage cars and meet the 125 MPH requirement at much lower cost.
There is also a philosophical component to this with respect to prioritizing use of scarce capital money. The first thing Amtrak does with its ARRA (Stimulus Bill) money is to buy baggage cars. One faction around here has the idea that Amtrak wouldn't be doing that if it were not a necessity. Another faction holds to the idea that baggage cars meeting the requirements can be had much more cheaply than the near, what was it, about 5 million dollar per car purchase price, namely by converting aging Amfleet.
There is also the idea of priorities and perceptions and visibilities. Yeah, yeah, the endless debate about corridors vs long-distance trains, but this is not about killing off long-distance trains. It is that if corridors are "where the action is" in terms of Amtrak making a meaningful contribution to highway congestion relief, fuel saving, providing an alternative to the white-knuckle driving experience on Interstates in an around major cities of large population, that the first purchase, the priority from Amtrak, should have been on corridor cars, or if long-distance equipment, on "revenue" cars.
That Amtrak is prioritizing spending scarce capital money on baggage cars (and given the unfortunate political dynamics, it is looking increasingly like the ARRA money was a one-time deal rather than a small downpayment on a lot-more-money-to-come) has the appearance of Amtrak being "on autopilot" and not being sensitive to the optics and also the political realities.
So now you know the back story on "high speed baggage cars" as "fighting words" on this forum.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul MilenkovicWhat determines that a particular piece of Heritage Fleet equipment such as a baggage car is not qualified for 125 MPH operation?
It's the 60' baggage cars that are the problem. The converted 85' ones are good for 110 mph. The shorter the car, the lower the hunting threshold speed. EMD GP40/50/60 and F40s all had issues because of their shortness. EMD recommended truck to frame dampers if they were to operate >60 mph.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Paul MilenkovicAny thoughts, insights, or inside information on any of this?
I used to get involved in exactly this sort of thing. I have conducted ride quality tests on locomotives and business cars on Conrail and witnessed some more done by Amtrak on FL9s and RoadRailers. I was also involved in some tests of EMD's radial truck. I haven't been involved in the past 15 years or so, so I may be behind the times a bit.
No new equipment that is going to operate outside of the range of similar equipment is going to hit the rails without some sort of actual testing. I believe that most of the time, the testing is specified by the purchaser. I believe the AAR has standards for freight car testing but I don't know if the FRA is involved these days with some requirements of their own or not.
Generally, you are looking at measuring lateral and vertical forces. Lower is better. (duh!) It is usually sufficient to place accelerometers over the bolster centers and look for incidence of high forces. Pretty much, if the forces are always low, you are good to go. Bouncing, hunting, poor lateral suspension, etc. are all going to show up at the car body. You can also instrument the truck with displacement transducers to see what's going on with the various moving parts (spring travel, rotation, etc.) if you need more detail or have found problems. (Much of what I learned about this work came from guys in Conrail's test lab - some of whom worked on the NYC jet-powered Budd car) Most of the time, I did side by side comparison tests against a know "standard" locomotive and work was focused on avoiding ride quality complaints on new locomotives. Not quite the same thing as HSR....
As for wheel profile, you at least want to document what you are testing. I would think for high speed operation it would be a good idea to test a range from new to "fully worn" to determine what limits on wheel wear are acceptable, although this was always beyond the scope of the tests I was involved with. The way I understand it, high speed trainsets generally need their wheels profiled often to keep the hunting threshold speed high. I believe Amtrak does this work on the Acela trainsets in Boston - wheel true machines can do this work w/o removing the wheelset.
Pueblo is getting used for the first phase of testing of new equipment a lot these days. But, there is usually some testing on actual routes done as well. There are often differences in track geometry that rear their ugly head that you find only when you test over a lot of territory. The Amtrak RoadRailers did fine on the NEC up to 100 mph but had all kinds of trouble on the ATSF at 90 mph. (turned out to be improper truck assembly....easily fixed)
The human exposure part I know less about. There exists a European standard for human exposure that does a weighted avg. by frequency and there are devices that can give you a reading on the fly. Once such device I used to borrow from Amtrak from time to time had a "whoopy-cushion" that you could sit on to measure exposure and give an over measure of ride comfort.
aegrotatioWhat I don't understand, however, is the distinctly silly total lack of checked baggage on the Acela.
The Acela is a premium-fare short-to-medium-haul operation oriented to business travel so checked baggage service is not needed.
From what I understand about the NEC, baggage service is generally not offered because the baggage cars only qualify for 90 MPH service partly due to their excessive age and obsolete trucks that do not allow for faster service. The upcoming Amtrak order does call for 125 MPH-qualified baggage cars so we can hopefully check our baggage on the Northeast Corridor between WAS and BOS anytime soon. Other NEC-travelling trains do have baggage cars which probably don't run at 125 MPH once they reach the electric portions of their trip.
What I don't understand, however, is the distinctly silly total lack of checked baggage on the Acela.
There has been a lot of discussion regarding Amtrak wanting to qualify new train car purchases for 125 MPH operation, including everything from the controversial new baggage cars to the recent multi-state pool to get a good price on bilevel coaches.
What qualifies a railroad car for 125 MPH operation? Do the manufacturers use computer software such as ADAMS (Automatic Dynamic Analysis of Machine Systems) to determine the critical speed at which truck hunting (also called nosing) sets in? Or is this largely an experimental science where someone build a railroad car, tests it, and applies damping or shims as needed to qualify?
Is a railroad car design tested at Pueblo, Colorado? Do they run such a car on their test track, or does any qualification for high-speed tracking behavior take place on their roller test stand? Do they test that car under "real world" conditions of different track quality and especially variation on the rail profiles that occur with wear?
When a car is qualified for 125 MPH operation, are specification issued for, say, the amount of wear allowed to the wheels to maintain that rating? The amount of degradation of suspension parts? Are there any specs for the condition of the track. Not just the FRA Class 1, Class 2, . . .rating, but are there specs on the allowed wear of the rail profile as it interacts with the wheel profile in regards to stable running?
For the 125 MPH qualification, is there any standard for the amount of impact, damage, or wear a particular truck, axle loading, railroad car, and especially locomotive has on the track?
Do people at Amtrak, either in management or maintenance shops know about these things? At the FRA? I have heard accounts of rough rides on Amtrak trains that people blame on "bad track", that is, the fault of the host railroad. Could some of those cases be the result of worn wheel or trucks, that is, an Amtrak maintenance concern?
If you have experienced rough rides on Amtrak trains, is it specific to certain kinds of equipment, Amfleet, Superliner I, and Superliner II, where each has a different truck design? If a train is riding roughly, is it localized to one car or is it experienced by all cars in the consist?
What determines that a particular piece of Heritage Fleet equipment such as a baggage car is not qualified for 125 MPH operation? Have they been tested and observed to hunt or nose below that speed? Could a Heritage diner or baggage car by modified, by replacing or adding dampers (shock absorbers) to the trucks, by adding wedges to reduce play in the journal guides?
That celebrated NYC jet-powered RDC was meant to be a test of the possibility of higher speeds with more or less conventional railroad equipment -- the jet power was never meant for revenue service. They seemed to operate a de-engined RDC at up to 180 MPH without incident, and the RDC truck design seems representative of Heritage Fleet (post war "lightweight streamliner" passenger equipment). I also heard that they used a special cylindrical wheel profile without the usual 1 in 40 cone taper to pull this off, and cylindrical wheel may pose problems with truck steering on sharp curves and a cylindrical profile may be hard to maintain given how wheel wear?
Any thoughts, insights, or inside information on any of this?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.