http://www.progressiverailroading.com/amtrak/news/Schumer-calls-on-USDOT-to-OK-Acela-train-purchase--44779
No, not simply the priority but the real priority is layed out. Can't have any 15 year old Acela trains let along 40 year old Amfleet -- aren't you supposed to get a new laptop every 3 years? And this has to not only serve taxpayers but especially tax-paying students, persons in familes, and those who are students. Furthermore, the expenditure on new trains is an investment.
I guess none of our major trading partners maintain fleets of trains of different attributes -- if they did, I guess they are very provincial and backward states that are not world-class. I suppose this is a knock on China that has world-class 160 MPH service because they have backed off on their top speeds for economy of maintenance and they also run many non-HSR trains? Poor China.
Oh, the humanity, the two different fleets must be confounding the Beech Grove shops or wherever in Long Island or Connecticut they maintain Corridor trains. C'mon people, its time to revise the passenger-train advocacy talking points -- especially the ones that are over 40-year old.
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 MilenkovicFrom the comments in that link: "The real priority is to replace the 40 year old Amfleet with safer integrated trainsets and eventually phase out the 15 year old Acela trainsets with a new standardized fleet of coach, business and first class trainsets so that all taxpayers including senior citizens, families and students can enjoy the federal investment in NEC 160 MPH service. No world class railroad operates with the complexities of two different fleets, speeds, marketing campaigns, maintenance cycles, dispatching requirements, etc." No, not simply the priority but the real priority is layed out. Can't have any 15 year old Acela trains let along 40 year old Amfleet -- aren't you supposed to get a new laptop every 3 years? And this has to not only serve taxpayers but especially tax-paying students, persons in familes, and those who are students. Furthermore, the expenditure on new trains is an investment. I guess none of our major trading partners maintain fleets of trains of different attributes -- if they did, I guess they are very provincial and backward states that are not world-class. I suppose this is a knock on China that has world-class 160 MPH service because they have backed off on their top speeds for economy of maintenance and they also run many non-HSR trains? Poor China. Oh, the humanity, the two different fleets must be confounding the Beech Grove shops or wherever in Long Island or Connecticut they maintain Corridor trains. C'mon people, its time to revise the passenger-train advocacy talking points -- especially the ones that are over 40-year old.
Killing them kindly with dripping sarcasm?
Deutsche Bahn is updating its intercity fleet. They will retire the old, loose-car-technology IC equipment as the new ICE Siemens trainsets are delivered.
China plans to order ~170 more HSR (250-350 kmh) sets as the 40,000 HSR network is expanded and completed.
Railroad engines, cars etc. are considered to be an capital investment (long-lived asset), as is all infrastructure.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Certainly. Not just simple sarcasm is merited for someone who wants to junk 15-year old trains but dripping sarcasm.
Paul Milenkovic Certainly. ... dripping sarcasm.
Certainly. ... dripping sarcasm.
I thought new NEC equipment was needed to keep up with the baggage car fleet.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Paul Milenkovic Certainly. Not just simple sarcasm is merited for someone who wants to junk 15-year old trains but dripping sarcasm.
Who said to "junk" the Acela trainsets? Citation? The NEC services are popular and ridership is growing. The proposals I have seen are to order new trainsets for the premium Acela services and bump the current Alstom trainsets to Northeast Regional trains, allowing the high-mileage Amfleets to retire or move elsewhere.
Traffic levels 5 - 8 years in the future are just a wild guess. How much of the NEC is rebuilt for the 160 MPH standard such as the Elizabeth " S " curve or the many slow areas Trenton - Frankford - PHL will affect how many want to travel on the NEC. + those speed ups south of PHL. So many other factors can affect number of travelers. It may be passenger demand will stay flat compared to this year.
All that being said Amtrak will not retire any equipment until absolutely known not to be needed. Unless Congress interfeers serviceable equipment will not be retired such as happened with the Heritage coaches and sleepers. ( I know why are the AEM-7DCs being scrapped )
Acela-1s may be kept in reserve or used on low demand trains. their lower capacity would not even now be able to substitute for many regionals The -2s are specified to have a much higher capacity. It could be that even that will not meet Acela demand especially before all the -2 EMUs are in service. Maybe take 1 - 3 cars from several -1 sets and add those cars if needed to other -1 sets.
But to state any plans for how equipment will be implemented for 5 - 8 years in the future is just pure speculation.
Unfortunately the high mileage Amfleet cars are the Amfleet-2s on LD not usually used on the NEC.
Nice to see Senator Chuck is "All aboard with Amtrak!" but he should be having the conversation with his aquaintances in the House of Representatives. According to the Constitution that's where all the money bills originate.
Someone correct me if I am wrong among a railfan community that rarely reads for details in an article.
However, I believe the business justification for buying the second version trainsets was because they had two or three more cars and hence would be more profitable than the current sets AND that someone at Amtrak did the math and figured out it would be more cost efficient to buy all new trainsets in the long run than to add two new cars to the older consists. As the newer trainsets would not only be cheaper to operate but they were engineered to perform consistently at slightly higher speed limits.
So if the new trainsets make the NE Corridor more profitable without depending on corresponding track improvements...........which was part of the Amtrak pitch then I am all for spending the money on them. Why not? In any Business that seeks to make a profit you need to renew equipment every 12-15 years to take advantage of technology improvements and efficiencies.
That comment offered a list of reasons to support the senior Senator from New York in asking for new Acela equipment, and among the reasons was that not only is the Amfleet age 40, the current Acela train sets are over 14 years old. I don't think the Senator was asking for all new trains, only for additional trains to meet the demand of the burgeoning ridership. One commentator, however, seems to be under the impression that if the request isn't to replace the existing trains on account of their age, incompatability with the new trains, safety concerns, or that if trains are that old, it is high time that we get new ones.
There was an oblique suggestion that Amfleet trains are obsolete in light of the recent accident. Something happened that a driver entered a curve with too much speed -- the circumstances of why this happened are under active investigation -- train cars left the tracks and in some cases rolled over, and one Amfleet coach was demolished when it collided with a steel catenary tower.
New train designs are not a magic safety solution. A similar bad thing happened in the derailment of a German ICE train where a train car then smashed into an overpass support. Here, the failure was intrinsic to the particular design of high-speed train having a type of wheel with a rubber insert for purposes of lower noise, cushioning, and lower effective unsprung mass at high speed. That rubber insert came apart.
The Amfleet train accident is still under investigation, but one possibility is that the driver was either distracted or maybe even stunned by someone dropping an object down on the locomotive windshield. Maybe we have a society that cannot supply meaning to the lives of people across all social strata, and we cannot prevent bored suburban kids from shining laser pointers into the eyes of airliner pilots out by the airport, and we cannot prevent bored city kids from dropping stuff on trains from overpasses?
There is also this compulsion in our society to change, to remodel, to buy new. But I don't think that some train advocacy people are bored with a train design that is 40 years old is a reason to scrap the Amfleet.
Paul MilenkovicHere, the failure was intrinsic to the particular design of high-speed train having a type of wheel with a rubber insert for purposes of lower noise, cushioning, and lower effective unsprung mass at high speed. That rubber insert came apart.
The Eschede tragedy (I believe the only ICE accident) was caused by the failure of the outer steel tire on the Uestra wheel-tire design (inner steel core, a 20 mm rubber ring and a thin outer steel tire). It cracked from wear and metal fatigue and embedded itself into the floor of the coach. A passenger asked a crew member to stop the train, but he refused. The steel tire then caught in a switch, which caused the derailment.
You chose to address your tirade to the inane, unrealistic comment on the article by someone named Scott Spencer, rather than the actual article containing Schumer's ideas or Amtrak's plans.
So we are in agreement that the comment offered on the linked post was inane and unrealistic?
Good, I think then progress can be made retiring 40-year-old arguments supporting the cause of trains.
Tax bills must originate in the House. Spending bills can originate in either house.
Bumping existing Acelas to NE Regionals is possible, because two Acela trains can mu together. They were designed with that capability.
interesting article about european designs migrating to USA. Find it a little over optomistic.
https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/modern-european-train-designs-american-tracks-2015-fra
Nearly all French, German. and Italian high speed trains mingle with conventional trains at some portion of their routes. By mingle I mean share tracks. This may not be true elsewhere.
daveklepper Nearly all French, German. and Italian high speed trains mingle with conventional trains at some portion of their routes. By mingle I mean share tracks. This may not be true elsewhere.
Very true. I fail to see blue streak's point about how the article is overly optimistic, however, in terms of adoption of new regs by the FRA.
schlimm daveklepper Nearly all French, German. and Italian high speed trains mingle with conventional trains at some portion of their routes. By mingle I mean share tracks. This may not be true elsewhere. Very true. I fail to see blue streak's point about how the article is overly optimistic, however, in terms of adoption of new regs by the FRA.
Look at the final condition of that first Amfleet car in the recent incident! I'd like to be a lawyer questioning a FRA official on how they can justify decreasing crashwothiness when the current standards allowed that to result.
Buslist schlimm daveklepper Nearly all French, German. and Italian high speed trains mingle with conventional trains at some portion of their routes. By mingle I mean share tracks. This may not be true elsewhere. Very true. I fail to see blue streak's point about how the article is overly optimistic, however, in terms of adoption of new regs by the FRA. Look at the final condition of that first Amfleet car in the recent incident! I'd like to be a lawyer questioning a FRA official on how they can justify decreasing crashwothiness when the current standards allowed that to result.
Don't the Amfleet cars date from the early 70's - before the FRA got hot and heavy on car integrety in collisions?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Amfleet I cars started use in 1975. They were derived from the Metroliners (1967) which were derived from Pioneer III/Silverliners (1963). Each is 110,000 pounds while an Acela non-power unit is 139,000 to 142,000 pounds. The newest genereation of Siemens Velaro trainsets weigh about 119,000 pounds per car.
schlimm Amfleet I cars started use in 1975. They were derived from the Metroliners (1967) which were derived from Pioneer III/Silverliners (1963). Each is 110,000 pounds while an Acela non-power unit is 139,000 to 142,000 pounds. The newest genereation of Siemens Velaro trainsets weigh about 119,000 pounds per car.
Weight is not the point, squeeze strength is. The FRA built a rig to measure upper chord squeeze strength as well as under frame. Let's see where that goes. Some intentions there?
The approach used these days is crash energy management.
http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/47000/47400/47424/rail_cw_2005_04.pdf
schlimm The approach used these days is crash energy management. http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/47000/47400/47424/rail_cw_2005_04.pdf
All well and good ( I was in the audience when they presented it, David is a friend) but FRA has not really adopted this thinking. Had a look at the upcoming NPRM (probably will be next year before it comes out, one of 2 coming soon). Defines Tier III equipment. Can have passengers in the end cars BUT they are limited to 125 on a mixed use railway, 220 if on exclusive ROW without grade crossings. The rule still retains the 800,000 lb. squeeze test with no deformation or 1,000,000 with 1" deformation so your new thinking not being incorporated. It does appear that FRA will accept computer models rather that actual tests to certify Tier 1 trains rather than physical tests. But as I read it the 800,000 lb. requirement remains.
No substantial changes to Tier II equipment (165 still the limit)
Amtrak needs New Superliners order too, not just NEC stuff.
BuslistThe rule still retains the 800,000 lb. squeeze test with no deformation or 1,000,000 with 1" deformation so your new thinking not being incorporated. It does appear that FRA will accept computer models rather that actual tests to certify Tier 1 trains rather than physical tests. But as I read it the 800,000 lb. requirement remains.
Does it make any sense to apply this to the portion of the car that qualifies as the 'strong occupant compartment' -- in other words decrement the amount of crash energy by that 'attenuated' by the CEM, starting with the squeeze-test 800K as the force at the beginning of the attenuation, until you get to the face of the SOC? That would give the equivalent 'safety' as a car with no CEM, as far as the seated passengers are concerned.
I have a methodological question. My understanding is that "kips" is used in engineering as a measure of pound-force, but the report schlimm quoted uses it in the context of pound-mass. I don't think you ought to mistake one for the other as there are significant formulaic differences based on speed -- and that might be overlooked if you ease the term into a discussion quietly enough. Since all the mass or force measurements in the rest of the paper appear to be expressed in scientific notation, I assume there is either a convention or practice involved in using "Kips" in this context; can someone who knows explain it?
(I hope Euclid has read this paper, and is applying some of the approaches, structural systems, and numbers described in it to the structure of his HHFT tank cars.)
The Cynicism in this thread is contagious..
I find myself wondering if the Senator would maintain his enthusiasm if Alstom were to lose the contract to a Manufacturer with no facilities in New York State..
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
BaltACD Buslist schlimm daveklepper Nearly all French, German. and Italian high speed trains mingle with conventional trains at some portion of their routes. By mingle I mean share tracks. This may not be true elsewhere. Very true. I fail to see blue streak's point about how the article is overly optimistic, however, in terms of adoption of new regs by the FRA. Look at the final condition of that first Amfleet car in the recent incident! I'd like to be a lawyer questioning a FRA official on how they can justify decreasing crashwothiness when the current standards allowed that to result. Don't the Amfleet cars date from the early 70's - before the FRA got hot and heavy on car integrety in collisions?
There were Fed requirments back then. Squeeze'em with a simulated full load plus design requirements like collision posts in the ends. The Budd test facility in Hunting Park PA had all the right stuff to do this testing - plus more.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.