Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="Railway Man"]Elsewhere in the U.S., UP, BNSF, CSX and NS have all agreed to employ a PTC system manufactured by Wabtec; most of the commuter lines that run on these Class 1s will likely emulate this.  What KCS, CPR, and CN will do is not known at this time.  However, none of these Class 1s are, on their own dime, planning to invest the substantial sums necessary to make their PTC systems plus-80 mph compliant with FRA regulations since they do not intend to run freight trains faster than 79 mph.  If Amtrak or someone else wants to run faster than 79 mph on a Class 1s railroad, they will have to come up with the money necessary to design, permit, and install the required upgrades to the standard PTC system.[/quote] So the government is paying for this PTC system, correct? At least the system allowing up to 79 MPH? [quote user="Railway Man"]You've summarized the design-flaw problems with Acela.  The problems, unfortunately, go much deeper than just the reinvent-the-wheel design; the weight and bulk of the Acela vehicle necessary to make it FRA-compliant creates significant problems in obtaining the same performance from the traction, suspension, HVAC, and other systems, that one can get with a lighter vehicle.  Imagine the problems in designing a commercial jet's landing gear and engines if you had to build the airframe out of 1/2" steel sheet vs. thin aluminum, and you can see where this leads.  The Acela is as a result a highly compromised design compared to things like the ICE train.[/quote] Definitely. I would be willing to bet that the ICE and other non-FRA compliant vehicles have a far superior acceleration and current draw because of the reduced weight. Or does the Acela have more powerful traction motors to compensate? The extra strain on the traction motors, suspension, brakes, and even the ground-based power system (that supplies power to the overhead wires) from all the extra weight probably doesn't come cheap. It all adds up...I was reading an article today (Power from the People in Popular Science) that was wondering why the mass transit uses such large and heavy vehicles to move such a light load. Hopefully if someone can convince the FRA to allow non-compliant DMUs and EMUs (electric multiple units) then the weight and size can be reduced to be more efficient. That should save a big portion of the electric bill...And even with Colorado Railcar in bankruptcy, if the market is there, someone will spring up to fill the new market. Bombardier, Siemens, or other subway-type car builders maybe? Or maybe a company with more experience with diesel propulsion... GE maybe?DMUs do seem to be gaining popularity here in the US; it seemed that after the RDCs, it was swept aside by locomotive-hauled trains. But recently they have been making a comeback. Florida's TriMet and Austin have both opted for DMUs, one FRA-compliant, the other not. But will Amtrak spring for them? I don't know...
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag