dakotafred In lack of domestic builders, who might have had a clue, we're stuck with the consequences of congressional failure to provide Amtrak a stream of revenue that might have supported at least one. So now we have to rely on foreign designs that make a more or less clumsy fit with American needs. Too bad.
In lack of domestic builders, who might have had a clue, we're stuck with the consequences of congressional failure to provide Amtrak a stream of revenue that might have supported at least one. So now we have to rely on foreign designs that make a more or less clumsy fit with American needs. Too bad.
Viewliner II, the nextgen bilevel coach, the California Car, these are all uniquely American designs with no foreign counterpart. We are relying on the manufacture's design ability and construction know how to make it work. Thus far we are not exactly batting-a-thousand.
Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak
ACF and Pullman pre-war all-aluminum cars would have failed the compression test, described by Budd's Dr Ragsdale as "a distinct minimum". All postwar aluminum cars had lots of steel in their underframes and ends.
Buslist Muralist0221 Would the passenger rail cars manufactured by Budd, Pullman Standard and ACF in the 30's, 40's and 50's have failed the compression test? (lol) no, read up on the history of the compression test, you'll get your answer! It's been discussed here recently.
Muralist0221 Would the passenger rail cars manufactured by Budd, Pullman Standard and ACF in the 30's, 40's and 50's have failed the compression test? (lol)
no, read up on the history of the compression test, you'll get your answer! It's been discussed here recently.
Muralist0221Would the passenger rail cars manufactured by Budd, Pullman Standard and ACF in the 30's, 40's and 50's have failed the compression test? (lol)
schlimm It seems ridiculous to be stuck with a company who cannot deliver up to specs. But then, Amtrak has had problems with the company making the Viewliner II sleeper cars, correct?
It seems ridiculous to be stuck with a company who cannot deliver up to specs. But then, Amtrak has had problems with the company making the Viewliner II sleeper cars, correct?
As for the Viewliner IIs and CAF USA they did at least come up with a shell that passed the crunch test. There are new baggage cars on just about every train that calls for one. (Two weeks ago on assignment in Seattle we were all surprised to see a baggge car converted from a coach come in on a train.) CAF USA had never delivered a stainless steel product before, shame on whoever gave them the contract, but are now learning a new science...at taxpayers expense.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
RME I'm pretty sure rights to the California Car would now belong to AECOM (the spinoff of Ashland Technology when Ashland went back into the oil business many years ago). This is a company that should know exactly what to do with the technology.
I'm pretty sure rights to the California Car would now belong to AECOM (the spinoff of Ashland Technology when Ashland went back into the oil business many years ago). This is a company that should know exactly what to do with the technology.
Buslist schlimm 1. The cars ordered are NOT for HSR lines, at least as the term is normally applied. 2. While Japan, China and France mostly have dedicated (HSR only) stretches, Germany only has some that are new, dedicated stretches. ICE trains operate on many different trackage types. France has lots of LTG operation on legacy track. Think of Gare De Nord as an example!
schlimm 1. The cars ordered are NOT for HSR lines, at least as the term is normally applied. 2. While Japan, China and France mostly have dedicated (HSR only) stretches, Germany only has some that are new, dedicated stretches. ICE trains operate on many different trackage types.
1. The cars ordered are NOT for HSR lines, at least as the term is normally applied.
2. While Japan, China and France mostly have dedicated (HSR only) stretches, Germany only has some that are new, dedicated stretches. ICE trains operate on many different trackage types.
France has lots of LTG operation on legacy track. Think of Gare De Nord as an example!
As I said previously, I am referring to mainline stretches, not major urban center approach trackage.
BTW, what are LTG operations in France?
CMStPnPSo does the TGV, it switches over to mixed use tracks just like the Thalys does as it approaches some large cities like Paris, Brussels and Koln.
That's true in most counties with HSR. Even ones with dedicated, HSR-only mainline stretches, they switch to older, shared RoWs to enter major cities. For example, the Chinese HSR line Beijing to Shanghai is one of the longest, but it uses conventional track to enter Beijing Central Station.
I referred to DB (German Rail) conventional mainlines where HSR (ICE) trains share track with ICs, Regionals and freight. They run at lower speeds than the dedicated stretches' 300kmh limit, of course, more like ~240kmh.
So does the TGV, it switches over to mixed use tracks just like the Thalys does as it approaches some large cities like Paris, Brussels and Koln.
BuslistLess compatable how? In Asia the trains tend to run on all new railway while most European trains use legacy routes in the cities.
One reason why, this model fits the U.S. better than the completely seperated model the Japanese use for HSR. Also, I believe the power cars at each end is a better model than the distributed method the Japanese use.
Both Japanese and Europeans do not really build their trains to crash standards which is fine I guess if we have PTC working we are not going to have a lot of crashes than we would without it. So I am all for the FRA waiver or whatever they did to get the trainsets made for the U.S. 30% lighter.
So even on the mixed rail routes the European standard I believe is closer to the U.S. as far as tonnage of the frieght on mixed lines and the speeds of the intermixed freight and passenger. Just by watching cable TV on Japans railways looks like they go with a lighter model though I am judging by eyeball looking at their cars.
Japanese redundancy systems for Earthquakes I think is overkill / over engineering and not needed in the United States. I think we could find a better approach for one Japan's Earthquakes are more frequent and severe than even what we experience on the West Coast.
Chinese model, too early to tell and I still feel a lot of what they did was ripped off from European makers.........so why not just go to the original source.
Also with Japan and China none of their systems so far cross borders into other countries or show the flexibility to run over another countries railroad tracks both Germans and French have done that. We are going to need that flexibility because ultimately our HSR corridors are going to stretch across the border into Canada and into Mexico.
Last the European choice is going to be compatible with what Canada chooses, I have a hard time believing they will pick something out of Asia. Really have my doubts on that but we'll see.
I would be real curious with who Mexico ends up choosing for HSR, when it happens.
One advantage that Siemens would have is that they're using a shot-welding technique to build the BrightLine trains, whether that technique is the same as the one Budd used or not I don't know, but that is the issue most other builders have had with using stainless steel.
I do believe though that CalTrans owns the design for the original California Cars as they're a basically a modified SuperLiner and when the second order was placed for additional cars for use on the Pacific Surfliners(original order of 66 cars are used on the Capital Corridor and San Joaquins) they where built by Alstom(who then rebuilt the original order at Mare Island to extend service life). Note that no commuter versions have ever been built, only the corridor service versions(not even any "long" distance versions either).
CMStPnP I'd vote to get rid of the Japs. Turn the order over to Alstom, Bombardier or Simens. Though it seems that Siemens and Alstom are becomming our defacto HSR builders which I think is good because France and Germany I think have superior technology and experience in the area. I really do not like the Asian HSR designs.....which I think are less compatible with our needs in the United States than the European Designs.
I'd vote to get rid of the Japs. Turn the order over to Alstom, Bombardier or Simens. Though it seems that Siemens and Alstom are becomming our defacto HSR builders which I think is good because France and Germany I think have superior technology and experience in the area. I really do not like the Asian HSR designs.....which I think are less compatible with our needs in the United States than the European Designs.
Less compatable how? In Asia the trains tend to run on all new railway while most European trains use legacy routes in the cities.
But some confusion may still exist here. As we have said many times before the Shinkansen designs belong to the railway not the car builder. That is why the train sets north of Tokyo (JREast) are very different from those south (west) of Tokyo (JRCentral). On any Shinkansen train there are cars from several different car builders.
schlimm I never liked the ones they made for Metra. IMO, they are noisier and ride more poorly than the old Budd and P-S cars they mostly replaced.
I never liked the ones they made for Metra. IMO, they are noisier and ride more poorly than the old Budd and P-S cars they mostly replaced.
Since they have the same trucks why would the ride be different?
To be fair though Kawaskai has made 125mph bi levels successfully for the US market. But Siemens and Alstom are the two I trust most.
I'd vote to get rid of the Japanese. Turn the order over to Alstom, Bombardier or Simens. Though it seems that Siemens and Alstom are becomming our defacto HSR builders which I think is good because France and Germany I think have superior technology and experience in the area. I really do not like the Asian HSR designs.....which I think are less compatible with our needs in the United States than the European Designs.
Paul Milenkovic zkr123 Since there have been so many mistakes making the Nippon Shayro Bi-levels, if its not too late, can the states/Amtrak back out of the deal and find a new builder? Like Alstom, Siemens, or Bombardier. Talgo! Talgo! Talgo!
zkr123 Since there have been so many mistakes making the Nippon Shayro Bi-levels, if its not too late, can the states/Amtrak back out of the deal and find a new builder? Like Alstom, Siemens, or Bombardier.
Since there have been so many mistakes making the Nippon Shayro Bi-levels, if its not too late, can the states/Amtrak back out of the deal and find a new builder? Like Alstom, Siemens, or Bombardier.
Talgo! Talgo! Talgo!
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
zkr123 Didnt they have to fire people for cutting corners in the quality of the rail cars?
Didnt they have to fire people for cutting corners in the quality of the rail cars?
I'm not aware of "so many" mistakes, only the game killer, not passing the squeez test. What are the other mistakes are you referring to?
Like with any contract there are terms. If the builder does not satisfy those terms then the contract is voided and the process starts anew. Basically we are in a waiting game. In the meantime California gets to experience recycled Arrow I cars and Talgo trainsets.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.