Trains.com

NS Consortium Bilevels

19693 views
151 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Friday, August 17, 2018 8:50 PM

n012944

https://www.fredericksburg.com/news/new-vre-cars-to-be-in-use-soon/article_ab19d3b2-fc1a-529a-bb52-16b4899b856d.html

 

"The Operations Board agreed at its Friday meeting to sell six of the old legacy cars to Metra in Chicago for a total of $3,000"

 

 
Didn't VRE originally purchased these cars from METRA ?.  There may have been some kind of buy back provision in METRA's sales contract to VRE ?  Maybe VRE bought them for $3,000 ?
 
  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 6,952 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Friday, August 17, 2018 7:36 PM

charlie hebdo
The Bombardier cars are much nicer inside than gallery car designs.  TRE can equip its fleet with used cars more easily than Metra. since TRE carries only 8200 passengers weekdays in 17 coaches.  Metra carries 292,000 on weekdays, requiring a fleet of ~900 bilevel gallery cars + 340 electric lines bilevels.

They can't buy used from Toronto?   Other cities use them as well.   They don't have to replace all of the old cattle cars.    Just one line as a trial would be nice or even a few trainsets on one line so Chicago riders can see what they have been missing.    It would be like introducing Western made cars to the Eastern Warsaw Pact countries.........or a more current analogy, replacing a family's Chinese made "LAND WIND" with a British made "LAND ROVER".

https://autoweek.com/article/car-news/land-rover-sues-chinese-evoque-copycat

Chicago riders just have to experience the difference to demand more from their allegedly "public servants".

 Canadian Dollar relative to the U.S. Dollar is falling like a rock under Tredeau, heck just wait 6-8 more months and a new Bombardier car will be half price.

 

  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 6,952 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Friday, August 17, 2018 7:31 PM

n012944
If you had bothered to check some facts, which is a strech for you, you would see that Metra has purchased used equipment. https://metrarail.com/about-metra/newsroom/metra-moves-buy-newer-engines   https://www.fredericksburg.com/news/new-vre-cars-to-be-in-use-soon/article_ab19d3b2-fc1a-529a-bb52-16b4899b856d.html   "The Operations Board agreed at its Friday meeting to sell six of the old legacy cars to Metra in Chicago for a total of $3,000"

Thats pretty funny.   I think had slightly larger purchases in mind. 

  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 5,636 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Friday, August 17, 2018 12:45 PM

CMStPnP
Dallas bought it's TRE cars used from Toronto, I have not seen any mechanical problems or malfunctioning equipment yet

The Bombardier cars are much nicer inside than gallery car designs. 

TRE can equip its fleet with used cars more easily than Metra. since TRE carries only 8200 passengers weekdays in 17 coaches.  Metra carries 292,000 on weekdays, requiring a fleet of ~900 bilevel gallery cars + 340 electric lines bilevels.

  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 5,636 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Friday, August 17, 2018 12:21 PM

BaltACD

 

 
n012944

https://www.fredericksburg.com/news/new-vre-cars-to-be-in-use-soon/article_ab19d3b2-fc1a-529a-bb52-16b4899b856d.html 

"The Operations Board agreed at its Friday meeting to sell six of the old legacy cars to Metra in Chicago for a total of $3,000"

 

WOW!  $500 a rail car they must be some splendid reliable rolling history!

 

I think they started on Metra or on one of its predecessor lines.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Thursday, August 16, 2018 8:42 PM

n012944

https://www.fredericksburg.com/news/new-vre-cars-to-be-in-use-soon/article_ab19d3b2-fc1a-529a-bb52-16b4899b856d.html 

"The Operations Board agreed at its Friday meeting to sell six of the old legacy cars to Metra in Chicago for a total of $3,000"

WOW!  $500 a rail car they must be some splendid reliable rolling history!

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    August 2004
  • From: The 17th hole at TPC
  • 2,283 posts
Posted by n012944 on Thursday, August 16, 2018 8:22 PM

CMStPnP

     Geez buy some used equipment for a change and save some money.......Chicago.

 

 

If you had bothered to check some facts, which is a strech for you, you would see that Metra has purchased used equipment.

https://metrarail.com/about-metra/newsroom/metra-moves-buy-newer-engines

 

https://www.fredericksburg.com/news/new-vre-cars-to-be-in-use-soon/article_ab19d3b2-fc1a-529a-bb52-16b4899b856d.html

 

"The Operations Board agreed at its Friday meeting to sell six of the old legacy cars to Metra in Chicago for a total of $3,000"

An "expensive model collector"

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Thursday, August 16, 2018 3:04 PM

CMStPnP
 
charlie hebdo
I agree.  You will see collectors on Metra trains, both mid-day and rush hour, at least on the MIL District-West and UP-West lines..  If you are a regular, or even semi-regular, you recognize them and vice versa, even knowing names. Metra seems to be looking into a change away from the gallery cars, at least considering this: https://www.midwesthsr.org/great-news-metra-asks-modern-car-designs?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=2077c35d-6dcb-4621-b8b2-44dd0b850ca3 

Also, Metra doesn't always have to buy things brand spanking new all the time.    The Rock Island service out of LaSalle Street station is a good candidate for used and rehabbed equipment..........not a lot of frequencies or miles per day, IMHO.

Dallas bought it's TRE cars used from Toronto, I have not seen any mechanical problems or malfunctioning equipment yet.   They are running just fine.     Same with the used locomotives.      It's a low mileage run as well so they can get away with it.   Some of METRA's runs are low mileage like the former RI service out of LaSalle Street Station.    Geez buy some used equipment for a change and save some money.......Chicago.

Used equipment being brought into an existing fleet bring along with it a whole host of mechanical challenges - as there may be very little parts interchange between existing and used equipment, thus having to expand the spare parts inventory to support the used equipment - with the understanding that there may not be spares available and that is why the original owner is getting rid of the equipment.  There is much more to used equipment than just a low purchase price.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 6,952 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Thursday, August 16, 2018 2:51 PM

charlie hebdo
I agree.  You will see collectors on Metra trains, both mid-day and rush hour, at least on the MIL District-West and UP-West lines..  If you are a regular, or even semi-regular, you recognize them and vice versa, even knowing names. Metra seems to be looking into a change away from the gallery cars, at least considering this: https://www.midwesthsr.org/great-news-metra-asks-modern-car-designs?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=2077c35d-6dcb-4621-b8b2-44dd0b850ca3

Also, Metra doesn't always have to buy things brand spanking new all the time.    The Rock Island service out of LaSalle Street station is a good candidate for used and rehabbed equipment..........not a lot of frequencies or miles per day, IMHO.

Dallas bought it's TRE cars used from Toronto, I have not seen any mechanical problems or malfunctioning equipment yet.   They are running just fine.     Same with the used locomotives.      It's a low mileage run as well so they can get away with it.   Some of METRA's runs are low mileage like the former RI service out of LaSalle Street Station.    Geez buy some used equipment for a change and save some money.......Chicago.

  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 5,636 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Tuesday, August 14, 2018 10:55 AM

CMStPnP

 

 
CSSHEGEWISCH
The need for train crews to check tickets has not gone away in the Chicago area due to a variety of factors including terms in labor contracts and a less than enthusiastic response from commuters to ticket vending machines. 

 

Has Chicago ever really tried an honor system like they have in Dallas?   I just find it hard to believe the people in Chicago are less capable than the folks in Dallas and I think someone is sticking it to the taxpayer with a human employment program that is wasteful.

The Dallas refurbished GO Transit style cars are far better than the Chicago Gallery Cars, more roomy, Digital readout on next stop, mostly carpet and formica on the inside vs bare steel.    For one they are a lot less drafty in the Winter at least on the upper two levels.     I don't think the commutters in Chicago have ever been given a choice over the cattle cars they have in use now.  I am sure METRA is full of excuses and justifications though since they have a self interest to stay top heavy with people.

I think if you subbed in Chicago Gallery Cars in Toronto for the GO Transit cars ridership would drop heavily.

 

 
charlie hebdo
1. Tickets can be checked by collectors capable of climbing stairs.  Typically on rush hour Metra trains, they come by only once or twice.  

 

Actually no they only need to spot check for tickets, enforced by a steep fine if the passenger does not have a ticket.   I've been on more than one Milwaukee West District Train where I never even saw a Conductor and I boarded out farther West than Schamburg, IL.     Chicago METRA needs more than anyone else a very deep personell cut, too many people doing jobs that should have been automated or eliminated a long time ago.

 

 

I agree. 

You will see collectors on Metra trains, both mid-day and rush hour, at least on the MIL District-West and UP-West lines..  If you are a regular, or even semi-regular, you recognize them and vice versa, even knowing names.

Metra seems to be looking into a change away from the gallery cars, at least considering this:

https://www.midwesthsr.org/great-news-metra-asks-modern-car-designs?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=2077c35d-6dcb-4621-b8b2-44dd0b850ca3

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, August 13, 2018 3:19 PM

Overmod
See, a fascinating thing about this is that people in the United States realized as early as the Miller anticlimber patents that the object was not, and ever could be, absorbing the crash energy of a head-to-head impact entirely with "CEM" composed of crumple zones.

That has never been pursued, neither in the USA nor in Europe. In the USA they investigated late what equipment according to Tier 1 standard can withstand. The result for two equal trains of locomotive and five cars (IIRC) was a crash at max. 18 mph.

In Europe more than 900 accident reports were evaluated and a standard developed that covers 90% of the accidents. Result are the following scenarios:

http://voith.com/corp-de/m_vt_statische_verteilung_der_aufprallkraefte_d_460x220.jpg

I have often said that there is no crashworthiness design that can survive the crash energy of  medium/high speed collissions.

Overmod
the 'answer' essentially lies in controlled derailment rather than pool-cueing; in keeping consists flexibly joined (to the greatest extent possible) with CEM attenuation inherent in the sections between vehicles but not tending to allow them to 'twist' apart, with reasonable precautions against the kind of tear-open accident we saw in the early M8 sideswipe.

Sounds quite good, theoretically. I don't think that this is technically practicable. I don't see a way to control this. There is not just the danger of crushing but also the secondary impact. And our head reacts far more sensible on a side impact than a front impact.

Overmod
n part this involves careful attention to the area around the tracks, so that unlike Eischeide (or Amtrak 188) there aren't any little posts to bring tons of concrete down on your heads in a direction that can't provide effective 'CEM'

As most track already exists it is too late for these considerations. And Eschede was a very untypical derailment. Cause for the accident was a broken wheel rim that got caught in a switch. http://archiv.rhein-zeitung.de/on/99/05/20/topnews/eschede4_.jpg

There is a rubber layer between wheel rim and wheel disk. This kind of wheel doesn't exist anymore.
Regards, Volker

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, August 13, 2018 2:41 PM

Electroliner 1935
Enjoyable and interesting. On the first video, we're some passenger trains diesel?

You are right, there were a few DMUs. You need not use the catenary to run on electrified lines. Using DMUs can mean the train leaves the electrified line somewhere and continues on a not electrified secondary line.

It is not unusual to watch diesel powered freight trains under catenary. In the beginning it was done to avoid a traction change when going on a non electrified line. In the mean time there are diesel runs unter catenary for the full length of the run.

Not very ecological, but with about 150 railroad companies with the open access the market leads to such solution.

Electroliner 1935
In the second, what cargo is carried in the reddish orange cars that looked like they could be coiled steel or coal hoppers?

Here I need your help. In the second video (Cologne-Mainz) it didn't find anything fitting. In the third video (Hamburg-Bremen) there is a train at 1:47. Cars 3 to 6 are low side gondolas loaded with small containers, the next seven are high side gondolas for everything except iron ore followed by three sliding-wall waggons: https://www.waggonbau-niesky.com/assets/components/phpthumbof/cache/2x2_sww_h%28f%29irrs_gr.a09da5de33354e2ff430fe7655e980de.jpg

The are followed by a gondola and a number of tank cars and then three sliding-wall waggons again separated by a gondola.

In the forth video (Hamburg-Hannover) you find Germany's heaviest freight train at 2:09. It is an iron ore train from the Port of Hamburg to Peine-Salzgitter weighing 6,300 tons. Usually it has two Class 151 locomotives as traction. The train is too heavy for the screw type coupling. Ore cars and locomotives are equipped with UIC-AK 69e automatic couplers.
Regards, Volker

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,669 posts
Posted by Overmod on Monday, August 13, 2018 2:38 PM

VOLKER LANDWEHR
As I said before, it doesn't matter for crashworthiness as neither the Tier 1 standard trains nor the European standard train will "survive" a 50 mph crash with a 2,000 tons freight train. They are not designed for it.

See, a fascinating thing about this is that people in the United States realized as early as the Miller anticlimber patents that the object was not, and ever could be, absorbing the crash energy of a head-to-head impact entirely with "CEM" composed of crumple zones.  That's good as far as it goes, but 'crash energy management' is not just a euphemism: for any substantial impact, the 'answer' essentially lies in controlled derailment rather than pool-cueing; in keeping consists flexibly joined (to the greatest extent possible) with CEM attenuation inherent in the sections between vehicles but not tending to allow them to 'twist' apart, with reasonable precautions against the kind of tear-open accident we saw in the early M8 sideswipe. 

In part this involves careful attention to the area around the tracks, so that unlike Eischeide (or Amtrak 188) there aren't any little posts to bring tons of concrete down on your heads in a direction that can't provide effective 'CEM', or towers to open you up like a beer can, but instead features that might help keep your consist relatively upright and out of trouble as it spalls off momentum...

  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 6,952 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Monday, August 13, 2018 1:17 PM

CSSHEGEWISCH
The need for train crews to check tickets has not gone away in the Chicago area due to a variety of factors including terms in labor contracts and a less than enthusiastic response from commuters to ticket vending machines. 

Has Chicago ever really tried an honor system like they have in Dallas?   I just find it hard to believe the people in Chicago are less capable than the folks in Dallas and I think someone is sticking it to the taxpayer with a human employment program that is wasteful.

The Dallas refurbished GO Transit style cars are far better than the Chicago Gallery Cars, more roomy, Digital readout on next stop, mostly carpet and formica on the inside vs bare steel.    For one they are a lot less drafty in the Winter at least on the upper two levels.     I don't think the commutters in Chicago have ever been given a choice over the cattle cars they have in use now.  I am sure METRA is full of excuses and justifications though since they have a self interest to stay top heavy with people.

I think if you subbed in Chicago Gallery Cars in Toronto for the GO Transit cars ridership would drop heavily.

charlie hebdo
1. Tickets can be checked by collectors capable of climbing stairs.  Typically on rush hour Metra trains, they come by only once or twice.  

Actually no they only need to spot check for tickets, enforced by a steep fine if the passenger does not have a ticket.   I've been on more than one Milwaukee West District Train where I never even saw a Conductor and I boarded out farther West than Schamburg, IL.     Chicago METRA needs more than anyone else a very deep personell cut, too many people doing jobs that should have been automated or eliminated a long time ago.

 

  • Member since
    September 2010
  • 2,515 posts
Posted by Electroliner 1935 on Monday, August 13, 2018 12:01 PM

Volker.

Enjoyable and interesting. On the first video, we're some passenger trains diesel? In the second, what cargo is carried in the reddish orange cars that looked like they could be coiled steel or coal hoppers?

Thanks

  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 5,636 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Monday, August 13, 2018 9:04 AM

CSSHEGEWISCH

 

 
charlie hebdo
 
GERALD L MCFARLANE JR
2. Just because you don't like the design doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it, it is the basis for the Superliners(along with the ATSF El Capitan, which need replacement)

 

AFAIK, neither the El Capitan cars nor their descendents, the Superliners, trace lineage to gallery cars, other than being bilevels.  I don't like them because they are a poor design based on the need for conductors checking tickets.  That need has changed.  The cars built after the P-S and Budd cars  are noisy (could be called Thunderboxes); all the cars going back to those of Budd, P-S and St. Louis have rather unpleasant interiors looking like a mobile cell block compared to other bilevel designs.

 

 

 
What is the problem with the gallery design beyond the fact that it dates back to 1950??  The need for train crews to check tickets has not gone away in the Chicago area due to a variety of factors including terms in labor contracts and a less than enthusiastic response from commuters to ticket vending machines.  The interiors may be rather utilitarian (this IS suburban equipment) but they are hardly unpleasant.
 

1. Tickets can be checked by collectors capable of climbing stairs.  Typically on rush hour Metra trains, they come by only once or twice.  

2. The interiors are dismal because of design, not decoration, and the newer cars are noisier than even the old P-S cars still running. Perhaps you wouldn't know this if you've never experienced other double decker designs?

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,540 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Monday, August 13, 2018 7:16 AM

charlie hebdo
 
GERALD L MCFARLANE JR
2. Just because you don't like the design doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it, it is the basis for the Superliners(along with the ATSF El Capitan, which need replacement)

 

AFAIK, neither the El Capitan cars nor their descendents, the Superliners, trace lineage to gallery cars, other than being bilevels.  I don't like them because they are a poor design based on the need for conductors checking tickets.  That need has changed.  The cars built after the P-S and Budd cars  are noisy (could be called Thunderboxes); all the cars going back to those of Budd, P-S and St. Louis have rather unpleasant interiors looking like a mobile cell block compared to other bilevel designs.

 
What is the problem with the gallery design beyond the fact that it dates back to 1950??  The need for train crews to check tickets has not gone away in the Chicago area due to a variety of factors including terms in labor contracts and a less than enthusiastic response from commuters to ticket vending machines.  The interiors may be rather utilitarian (this IS suburban equipment) but they are hardly unpleasant.
The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, August 13, 2018 5:29 AM

Here are some examples:

Cologne to Mainz (left side of River Rhein): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jT1qCzB01Ac
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6NT_trPaYA

Hamburg to Bremen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnaRgNDMDu8

Hamburg to Hannover: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peP5ZkvU514

They are run as I described before. You will not see ICE trains and freight trains on single track lines.

As I said before, it doesn't matter for crashworthiness as neither the Tier 1 standard trains nor the European standard train will "survive" a 50 mph crash with a 2,000 tons freight train. They are not designed for it.

With single track there might be more chances for accidents but could have been solved long ago with ATS systems.

The FRA has introduced 49 CFR Part 238 Appendix G as the realized that CEM design provides much better survival chances than the traditional design, even the American kind of operation.
Regards, Volker

  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 6,952 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Sunday, August 12, 2018 7:59 PM

VOLKER LANDWEHR
DB tries to run freight trains at about the average passenger train speed to minimize interference. There are meets, overtakings, and crossings. As we have a lot of pssenger trains many freight trains run at night when passenger traffic is lighter. A much larger difference is that DB has ATS safety systems (PZB and LZB) since 1930 (LZB since mid 1990s). So hopefully PTC will help to keep trains separated. The style of operation is different but doesn't play a role in crashworthiness.

Even did a quick scan of YOUTUBE videos of Germany and Austria.    I only found one video with a Freight Train and Passenger train on what looked like on the same line at the same time passing each other in Dresden.    The others it is either the lines are far apart and probably different lines or it is one freight after another blocked together, then one passenger train after another blocked together with directional running.    I still do not see them intermixed like in the U.S.

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, August 12, 2018 1:34 PM

CMStPnP
Meaning, the line would be clear of passenger trains before they sent a freight train through. The Germans were real careful of that with their dispatching.

The passenger trains have absolute priority in Germany. The passenger trains run according their schedule and freight trains are fitted in between when ever possible.

DB tries to run freight trains at about the average passenger train speed to minimize interference. There are meets, overtakings, and crossings. As we have a lot of pssenger trains many freight trains run at night when passenger traffic is lighter. A much larger difference is that DB has ATS safety systems (PZB and LZB) since 1930 (LZB since mid 1990s). So hopefully PTC will help to keep trains separated.

The style of operation is different but doesn't play a role in crashworthiness.

The American rules require to make a vehicle as rigid as suitable, an approach the automobile industry let behind in the 1960s. And as I have shown above the results are not as good as most here think, they are worse than CEM standards.
Regards, Volker

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, August 12, 2018 1:09 PM

CMStPnP
FRA is doing the right thing, given United States railway operating practices....

You are right, in the sense that FRA allows to ask for a waiver regarding standard Tier 1 crashworthiness standards and use the Appendix G to (49 CFR)  Part 238—Alternative Requirements for Evaluating the Crashworthiness and Occupant Protection Performance of a Tier I Passenger Trainset. (see my post above).

The Tier 1 standard and Appendix G are designed to lead to the same safety levels.

In a Notice of proposed rulemaking FRA writes that the Appendix G leads to results close to the European standards with only minor adjustments needed.

To illustrate the influence of CEM design I post a link: Effectiveness of Alternative Rail Passenger Equipment Crashworthiness Strategies,

 Different accident scenarios with different train make-up were investigated

One collision partner was always a locomotive led conventional train of equal mass. The five train make-ups of the second collision partner were:

1. All conventional cars with a cab car leading (baseline case) (CCL)

2. All conventional cars with a locomotive leading (CLL)

3. Conventional coach cars with pushback couplers, with CEM cab car leading (I-CEM)

4. All CEM cars with a cab car leading (CEM CL)

5. All CEM cars with a locomotive leading (CEM LL)

The test were conducted at speed between 10 and 40 mph.The number of fatalities was calculated from the length of crush and decceleration. Here are the results for 30 mph:

Table from link____________________Make- up moving train

____________________1 CCL__2 CLL___3 I-CEM___4 CEM CL___5 CEM LL

# of fatalities due to_______0______0______­­­__0________4__________0

secondary impact

# of fatalities due to_______55_____10_______10_______0__________0

Crush


Total fatalities____________55_____10_______10_______4__________0

Excuse the underscores (-) they allow a readable table.
Regards, Volker

 

 

  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 6,952 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Sunday, August 12, 2018 10:57 AM

GERALD L MCFARLANE JR
It's also time for the FRA to revise their collision standard...perhaps to more align with the rest of the world(and don't give me that BS about freight being separate from passenger in Europe, it's not, so that doesn't hold water).

FRA is doing the right thing, given United States railway operating practices....

My 18 months living in Germany and some trips back to Europe since then.    I never once sat on a Passenger train that passed a Freight train or vice versa.    I used to live near Osterholtz, Germany midway up the Bremen to Bremerhaven line, while your correct that freights and passenger used the same rails at times, they were never comingled like they are in the United States.

Meaning, the line would be clear of passenger trains before they sent a freight train through.    The Germans were real careful of that with their dispatching.

So unless something has changed or DB rail operations have changed I don't think what you say is exactly correct.   It's nothing like the operation in the United States.    Large class I's cannot afford to clear the line for passenger like they did in Germany.......freight trains in the United States are too slow and too large.

Same was done in Italy as well as Switzerland via my observation.

Additionally, in Germany they had so many redundant and parallel lines they could easily flip one to freight for an hour or a few hours and still maintain a fluid network getting both the freight train and the passenger train to their desination on time.     Also, not like the United States where the parallel lines have largely been abandoned as wasteful (even though they might help network fluidity).    In the United States frieght has to fight against passenger repeately because the railroads are too cheap to maintain a sgnificant long distance parallel rail line if it is not at least heavily used.   Can't have two moderately used rail lines side by side in the United States.   Nope, you have to shift all the traffic over to one rail line and abandon the other.     I don't think you have that same philosophy in Europe.

Also, remember the ore trains from Bremerhaven flying through Osterholtz with their ore jennies doing at least 70 mph or better.    Lol, try that in the United States and watch the old ore jennies litterly fly apart in front of your eyes or go flying off the tracks.    They just do not maintain freight cars in the United States to the same standards as Europe does, in my opinion.    Nor do they exercise the run them until they fall off the tracks philosophy.

American freight train speeds are so slow sometimes I have to chuckle.   You should see how slow the freights are pulling in and out of the BNSF yard in Kansas City......completely ridiculous and DB would never stand for that waste of capital, labor and time........... for what?    To preserve old railroad infrastructure past it's prime?   Nope, DB would modernize the yard and or the approach tracks and those frieght trains would roll in and roll out of that yard a lot faster than they do.

I still chuckle over the Empire Builder crawling out of Milwaukee West on the former Milwaukee Tracks in the Mennominee River valley of Milwaukee.......all the way to the stadium it crawls.   Good lord people there hasn't been any decent yard activity on that line since like 12-15 years ago.   Get with CP and get those stupid yard speed limits lifted as well as install CTC through the damn passenger station.     To me it just looks like a waste of time, labor and is highly inefficient on the part of Amtrak to tolerate that BS because CP doesn't want to take any initiative to change it.    Whats the cost to fix that BS?    Maybe $5-10 million, however it would probably have a short payback period in saved time / labor costs.     No reason the speed limit in the valley can't be 65 mph or better right up to the passenger station.

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, August 12, 2018 10:24 AM

BaltACD
European freight is not 15K feet long and 20K tons.

I think this argument isn’t valid. Why?
No crashworthiness design can prevent death of crew or passenger under all accident condition. The FRA Tier 1 crashworthiness standard was never designed for a specified scenario. That was done late when Crash Energy Management (CEM) came into use abroad.
In the meantime FRA has introduced Appendix G to (49 CFR)  Part 238—Alternative Requirements for Evaluating the Crashworthiness and Occupant Protection Performance of a Tier I Passenger Trainset
The goal was to provide an alternative using CEM with the same safety level as the Tier 1 standard.
As a measure for an equal safety level DOT published the Technical Criteria and Procedures for Evaluating the Crashworthiness and Occupant Protection Performance of Alternatively Designed Passenger Rail Equipment for Use in Tier 1 Service.

Source: https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/9505

 PDF-page 26: Superior crashworthiness performance of CEM equipment has been demonstrated with full-scale impact tests. In the train-to-train test of conventional equipment, the colliding cab car was crushed by approximately 22 feet (ft) and overrode the locomotive, eliminating the space for the engineer‘s seat and for approximately 47 passenger seats [15]. During the train-to-train test of CEM equipment, the front of the cab car was crushed by approximately 3 ft, and the crush was propagated back to all of the unoccupied ends of the trailing passenger cars. The controlled deformation of the cab car prevented override. All of the space for the passengers and crew remained intact [16]. The impact speed for both train-to-train tests was 30 mph. 

One accident scenario for Alternative design equipment is the collision with a locomotive led conventional (Tier 1) passenger train at 20 mph. The reason for 20 mph:
PDF-Page 38: Tier I-compliant equipment performance in the prescribed scenario is dependent on a number of factors, including train makeup—whether the equipment is push-pull or MU and the number of cars in the consist [26]. The maximum collision speed for which all of the space for the passengers and crew is preserved for single-level equipment ranges from about 10 mph for a long train pushed by a locomotive to about 18 mph for a short MU train. There is some uncertainty in this range, and actual performance may be somewhat better or worse. The 20-mile per hour speed used in the scenario criteria, then, is an upper estimate of what Tier I-compliant equipment may achieve in the prescribed scenario.

So even when colliding with another passenger train the current Tier 1 standard provides only crew and passenger safety up to 20 mph. No mentioning of 20 Ktons trains.
Regards, Volker

 

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Saturday, August 11, 2018 10:54 PM

GERALD L MCFARLANE JR
It's also time for the FRA to revise their collision standard...perhaps to more align with the rest of the world(and don't give me that BS about freight being separate from passenger in Europe, it's not, so that doesn't hold water).

European freight is not 15K feet long and 20K tons.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 5,636 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Saturday, August 11, 2018 10:53 PM

GERALD L MCFARLANE JR
2. Just because you don't like the design doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it, it is the basis for the Superliners(along with the ATSF El Capitan, which need replacement)

AFAIK, neither the El Capitan cars nor their descendents, the Superliners, trace lineage to gallery cars, other than being bilevels.  I don't like them because they are a poor design based on the need for conductors checking tickets.  That need has changed.  The cars built after the P-S and Budd cars  are noisy (could be called Thunderboxes); all the cars going back to those of Budd, P-S and St. Louis have rather unpleasant interiors looking like a mobile cell block compared to other bilevel designs.

  • Member since
    September 2014
  • 376 posts
Posted by GERALD L MCFARLANE JR on Saturday, August 11, 2018 10:35 PM

charlie hebdo

1. I sure hope no more junk from N-S.

2. I hope this is the end of reiterations of the gallery car design from 1950.

3. CMStPnP is right.  Consolidation of designs and builders is a must. 

1. They're only shutting down their U.S. plant, not going out of business entirely...could still source from Japan or co-produce with an existing supplier

2. Just because you don't like the design doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it, it is the basis for the Superliners(along with the ATSF El Capitan, which need replacement)

3. Not going to happen in an international marketplace, and we're just one teeny tiny pie in that international marketplace.

 

It's also time for the FRA to revise their collision standard...perhaps to more align with the rest of the world(and don't give me that BS about freight being separate from passenger in Europe, it's not, so that doesn't hold water).

  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 5,636 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Saturday, August 11, 2018 9:35 PM

BaltACD

 

 
charlie hebdo
1. I sure hope no more junk from N-S.

2. I hope this is the end of reiterations of the gallery car design from 1950.

3. CMStPnP is right.  Consolidation of designs and builders is a must.

 

Like CAF is a paragon of railcar manufacture......

 

Even worse, at least for the Viewliner 2 order.

 

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Saturday, August 11, 2018 6:10 PM

charlie hebdo
1. I sure hope no more junk from N-S.

2. I hope this is the end of reiterations of the gallery car design from 1950.

3. CMStPnP is right.  Consolidation of designs and builders is a must.

Like CAF is a paragon of railcar manufacture......

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 5,636 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Saturday, August 11, 2018 5:08 PM

1. I sure hope no more junk from N-S.

2. I hope this is the end of reiterations of the gallery car design from 1950.

3. CMStPnP is right.  Consolidation of designs and builders is a must.

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy