QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Maybe he means better suspension & maybe leaning into curves. I would suspect that the NEC ould easily support trains with 15 minute headways with the signal system now in place. Heck between commuter & A/trak trains I would think even 15 minutes would be a long period. I know that the tunnel between NJ & Penn Station NY can handle a ttrain every 3 minutes. That would mean the signal system is geared for that time frame. [:D][:p] Originally posted by oltmannd Originally posted by uzurpator Originally posted by oltmannd Operationally, it could be done (you'd have to kick NJT out of some Penn Sta slots, tho'), but would the market support it? What headways support the max benefit for the least cost? I have never seen, read or heard anything that would support 15 minute headways. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, April 29, 2005 4:26 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd What "technology" of Amfleet is obsolete? I would suggest that there really is nothing new since the 70s on the car side. Suspension, electomagnetic brakes, air conditioning, shock absorption, lightweight materials, controlled braking - a few things did improve. besides - amfleet are getting older - soon they will show it with increasing maintenence. QUOTE: What do you base the 15 minute interval demand on? I remember reading a case, not too long ago in trains, that the frequency should be no more than hourly and the trains longer with several classes of accomodations - not more frequent. Ehem - having a station in the middle of cities with several million in population and running trains at hour tact is sorta weird. Besides - high frequency introduces "the train is always there" - thus increases ridership. Look at Europe - at the same distance you get hourly tact between cities helluva smaller then NY or Boston. Actually - at peak times some TGV lines are run with 3 minute headways. Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, May 2, 2005 7:12 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd What "technology" of Amfleet is obsolete? I would suggest that there really is nothing new since the 70s on the car side. Suspension, electomagnetic brakes, air conditioning, shock absorption, lightweight materials, controlled braking - a few things did improve. besides - amfleet are getting older - soon they will show it with increasing maintenence. QUOTE: What do you base the 15 minute interval demand on? I remember reading a case, not too long ago in trains, that the frequency should be no more than hourly and the trains longer with several classes of accomodations - not more frequent. Ehem - having a station in the middle of cities with several million in population and running trains at hour tact is sorta weird. Besides - high frequency introduces "the train is always there" - thus increases ridership. Look at Europe - at the same distance you get hourly tact between cities helluva smaller then NY or Boston. Actually - at peak times some TGV lines are run with 3 minute headways. Nice opinions. I disagree. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, May 2, 2005 7:45 AM Did Mr. Gunn say anything about Amtrak ownership of the corridor west of New Haven, currently owned by CDOT and Metro-North? Reply Edit spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, May 2, 2005 7:45 AM Actually once you get past the "romance" of riding a train there really is no real reason to keep A/trak going beyond the NEC. I compare it to the "International Space Station" which is another government boondoggle in my opinion. [:o)][:D][:)] Originally posted by donclark [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply daveklepper Member sinceJune 2002 20,096 posts Posted by daveklepper on Monday, May 2, 2005 8:39 AM First of all, David Gunn was not running the show when Acela was designed and did not have any say in reviewing the bid proposals. He was simply faced with the task of making the darn thing work. Second, yes in my opinion, Amtrak could be profitable: The $14Billion for the big dig is peanuts compared with the total spent for investment in highway and airport infrastructure. Amtrak can be profitable if first about $400Billion is spent for Amtrak investment, including capacity enhancement for high-speed running on selected congested freight lines used by Amtrak, a NSta-SSta Boston rail connection, complete repairs to the Corridor, renewal of all critical components, both hotel and running gear, on all Amfleet, Horizen, and Superliner equipment, overhauling of Acela equipment and Bombardier locomotives to incorporate everything that the Wilmington Shope people have learned, enhancement of the total rolling stock with new equipment so critical links can be restored, such as Florida-Atlanta-Cincinnati-Chicago, and increased frequencies so CZ can be daily and supplemented by a Chi-Denver train, so Cleveland can have service east and west at a reasonable hour, etc. Then price the service to meet the demand, following airline practice to keep the trains full during slack periods and charge what the traffic will bear during peak periods. Do not run social service operations like commuter trains to remove highway congestion unless local state or authority organizations pay for the subsidy. The high speed corridor trains will then truly be competitive with air travel and should charge accordingly. The long distance trains should be considered as cruise ships on land and charge accordingly except for reduced fares for those with medical problems that cannot fly or cannot drive long distances, and their fares do deserve a government subsidy in my opinion. Similarly with maintaining communications in harsh winter weather in the Northwest. Short of that, the $Billion subsidy Amtrak requires is peanuts compared to the total transportation expenditures and is well worth what it buys, in my opinion. Amtrak's own reform plan should be adopted and fully funded. Reply gabe Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Indianapolis, Indiana 2,434 posts Posted by gabe on Monday, May 2, 2005 8:48 AM I am not agreeing or disagreeing with you, Dave. But, barring a major energy crisis--which isn't out of the question--they will NEVER spend 400 Billion on Amtrak. I think all of the railroads in the United States could be bought for about 90 Billion. Gabe Reply Modelcar Member sinceFebruary 2002 From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania 13,456 posts Posted by Modelcar on Monday, May 2, 2005 9:00 AM ....And suitable improvements for Amtrak could be made for much less than the 400B....If conditions were suitable and facilities were up to good standards I believe plenty of folks would like to travel via train...In comfort and not as what the comfort level has become on air travel. Quentin Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, May 2, 2005 12:12 PM We could spend trillions on them but outside of the NEC unless they own the tracks, dispatch the trains, contril the trains A/trak will continue to provide poor service. Just my opinion. [:o)][8D] Originally posted by Modelcar [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, May 2, 2005 12:17 PM Here is the original post about the 15 minutes. I was only imparting what I know about headways on the NEC QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Why the new cars? What's wrong with Amfleet? What would they do with all the displaced Amfleet? Why the new cars? Because a service like Boston - Wash should be run with 15 minute interval. If not more. What's wrong with Amfleet? Apart from being late 70ties technology - nothing much. What would they do with all the displaced Amfleet? I heard that LD trains long for new equipment. This post has been edited by uzurpator on 27 QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Maybe he means better suspension & maybe leaning into curves. I would suspect that the NEC ould easily support trains with 15 minute headways with the signal system now in place. Heck between commuter & A/trak trains I would think even 15 minutes would be a long period. I know that the tunnel between NJ & Penn Station NY can handle a ttrain every 3 minutes. That would mean the signal system is geared for that time frame. [:D][:p] Originally posted by oltmannd Originally posted by uzurpator Originally posted by oltmannd Operationally, it could be done (you'd have to kick NJT out of some Penn Sta slots, tho'), but would the market support it? What headways support the max benefit for the least cost? I have never seen, read or heard anything that would support 15 minute headways. Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, May 2, 2005 12:22 PM Gabe unless Amtrak can dispatch their own trains no matter how much $$$$ is given to them in my opinion the same poor service will continue. It is the RRs who own the ROW mentality that keeps A/trak from performing. In my opinion the RRs consider it a pain in the neck to operate A/trak as it screws up there freights [:o)][8D] Originally posted by gabe Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, May 2, 2005 12:33 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Nice opinions. I disagree. If you just disagree, then your disagreement is worthless. Care to back it up? BTW - how is progress in car technology an opinion? Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, May 2, 2005 12:40 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd What "technology" of Amfleet is obsolete? I would suggest that there really is nothing new since the 70s on the car side. Suspension, electomagnetic brakes, air conditioning, shock absorption, lightweight materials, controlled braking - a few things did improve. besides - amfleet are getting older - soon they will show it with increasing maintenence. You make a case for rebuilding Amfleet, not scrapping it. Suspension - nothing new in the past 50 years. Electromagnetic brakes - huh? The only ones I know of are trolley car track brakes. Is this what you mean? Air conditioning - nothing new, other than controls and refrig. type, in the past 50 years. Shock absorbtion - viscous damping is viscous damping. Friction damping is friction damping. Nothing new here since the 1960s. Lightweight materials - such as? You COULD make a passenger car out of aluminum or composites, but what would be the point? You still have to make 1M lbs buff and materials other than steel have fatigue life issues. Controlled braking - anti-slide braking to reduce stopping distances has been around since the 1940s. The controls for it are better, but the basic technology is the same. Amfleet was built with EP braking, but Amtrak removed it. It wasn't needed, even on 18 cars trains. What about the age of Amfleet will make maintenance increase? If you rebuild in kind, you reset the clock, get "like new" performance, at roughly half the cost of new. You can even "reset" the fatigue life clock on steel castings or weldments by stress relieving them. At roughly 30 years, you have to rewire, which is a pain, but affords an opportunity to update some systems. Amfleet is certainly good enough for 100 -125 mph service. 20+ years in Metroliner service proves that. What Amtrak needs is more places to run 100-125 mph. Lets not waste what capital money that comes along on new passenger cars. Does anyone know if the Capstone program includes rewiring? If it does, those cars are good for another 30 years - with periodic truck overhauls. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, May 2, 2005 1:30 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd You make a case for rebuilding Amfleet, not scrapping it. Suspension - nothing new in the past 50 years. Air suspension, suspension optimised for humans in the way it osccilates, computer controlled etc etc... http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/sr10.html QUOTE: Electromagnetic brakes - huh? The only ones I know of are trolley car track brakes. Is this what you mean? Pretty much - most of european high speed (125 mph+) equipment has them installed - they make quick stop in emrgency. While in trolley cars they were used forsome time, but were recently introduced into psgr stock. [deleted some] Of course there are also magnetic induction brakes, but that is for 140mph+ speeds. Since america will not have such trains in any forseeable future... http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/research.html#brakes QUOTE: Air conditioning - nothing new, other than controls and refrig. type, in the past 50 years. Seesh - there was air conditioning in ancient Egypt. The point is that air conditioning of the 70'ties is different to air conditioning of now. The principle is the same, but applied and controlled differently. QUOTE: Shock absorbtion - viscous damping is viscous damping. Friction damping is friction damping. Nothing new here since the 1960s. I was more concerned about crashworthiness here - you know finite element CAD designed cars and such. Lower weight with higher buff strength etc. QUOTE: Lightweight materials - such as? You COULD make a passenger car out of aluminum or composites, but what would be the point? You still have to make 1M lbs buff and materials other than steel have fatigue life issues. TGV Duplex cars use aluminum side walls - allowing double deck trainset with 17 tonnes axleload. ICE3 uses special seat construction which saves about 2 tons of car weight. The cage of the car - the buff strength part - can be made of steel. The rest is the field to show progress. QUOTE: Controlled braking - anti-slide braking to reduce stopping distances has been around since the 1940s. The controls for it are better, but the basic technology is the same. Amfleet was built with EP braking, but Amtrak removed it. It wasn't needed, even on 18 cars trains. AC traction was avalible in 50ties. It happened to be usable just recently. You see the difference? QUOTE: What about the age of Amfleet will make maintenance increase? If you rebuild in kind, you reset the clock, get "like new" performance, at roughly half the cost of new. You can even "reset" the fatigue life clock on steel castings or weldments by stress relieving them. At roughly 30 years, you have to rewire, which is a pain, but affords an opportunity to update some systems. The general rebuild you propose is just like building a new car. And cost just about the same. You can rewire, change seat configuration, add fancy electronics etc. But once you start to fiddle with the car cage or load bearing elements - you just might build a new car. QUOTE: Amfleet is certainly good enough for 100 -125 mph service. 20+ years in Metroliner service proves that. What Amtrak needs is more places to run 100-125 mph. Lets not waste what capital money that comes along on new passenger cars. Good enough is not _best_ you could get for the price. QUOTE: Does anyone know if the Capstone program includes rewiring? If it does, those cars are good for another 30 years - with periodic truck overhauls. BTW - I imagine that the inside bearings on amfleet are maintenece nightmares. Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Tuesday, May 3, 2005 12:29 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd You make a case for rebuilding Amfleet, not scrapping it. Suspension - nothing new in the past 50 years. Air suspension, suspension optimised for humans in the way it osccilates, computer controlled etc etc... http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/sr10.html QUOTE: Electromagnetic brakes - huh? The only ones I know of are trolley car track brakes. Is this what you mean? Pretty much - most of european high speed (125 mph+) equipment has them installed - they make quick stop in emrgency. While in trolley cars they were used forsome time, but were recently introduced into psgr stock. [deleted some] Of course there are also magnetic induction brakes, but that is for 140mph+ speeds. Since america will not have such trains in any forseeable future... http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/research.html#brakes QUOTE: Air conditioning - nothing new, other than controls and refrig. type, in the past 50 years. Seesh - there was air conditioning in ancient Egypt. The point is that air conditioning of the 70'ties is different to air conditioning of now. The principle is the same, but applied and controlled differently. QUOTE: Shock absorbtion - viscous damping is viscous damping. Friction damping is friction damping. Nothing new here since the 1960s. I was more concerned about crashworthiness here - you know finite element CAD designed cars and such. Lower weight with higher buff strength etc. QUOTE: Lightweight materials - such as? You COULD make a passenger car out of aluminum or composites, but what would be the point? You still have to make 1M lbs buff and materials other than steel have fatigue life issues. TGV Duplex cars use aluminum side walls - allowing double deck trainset with 17 tonnes axleload. ICE3 uses special seat construction which saves about 2 tons of car weight. The cage of the car - the buff strength part - can be made of steel. The rest is the field to show progress. QUOTE: Controlled braking - anti-slide braking to reduce stopping distances has been around since the 1940s. The controls for it are better, but the basic technology is the same. Amfleet was built with EP braking, but Amtrak removed it. It wasn't needed, even on 18 cars trains. AC traction was avalible in 50ties. It happened to be usable just recently. You see the difference? QUOTE: What about the age of Amfleet will make maintenance increase? If you rebuild in kind, you reset the clock, get "like new" performance, at roughly half the cost of new. You can even "reset" the fatigue life clock on steel castings or weldments by stress relieving them. At roughly 30 years, you have to rewire, which is a pain, but affords an opportunity to update some systems. The general rebuild you propose is just like building a new car. And cost just about the same. You can rewire, change seat configuration, add fancy electronics etc. But once you start to fiddle with the car cage or load bearing elements - you just might build a new car. QUOTE: Amfleet is certainly good enough for 100 -125 mph service. 20+ years in Metroliner service proves that. What Amtrak needs is more places to run 100-125 mph. Lets not waste what capital money that comes along on new passenger cars. Good enough is not _best_ you could get for the price. QUOTE: Does anyone know if the Capstone program includes rewiring? If it does, those cars are good for another 30 years - with periodic truck overhauls. BTW - I imagine that the inside bearings on amfleet are maintenece nightmares. Suspension - pnuematic suspension is common in the US and has been. That you can add decent computer simulation to the design, reduces testing costs, not quality of final product. Braking - induction rail braking - this is new and very cool, but as you said, not needed for 125mph. Locomotive hauled Amfleet trains already have the 3 other kinds of braking - dynamic, disc and tread, just like TGV, just lower capacity - an all that's needed for 125 mph. HVAC - microprocessor controlled is better - but very cheap to retrofit. Not even a small part of "new is better than rebuild" part. Finite element design vs. pencil and paper - I agree you could shave a bit of weight out, but, again, this is small potatoes for a rail car - unlike a airliner. Braking - I think your analogy w/AC traction is one of improved technology. I'll agree, but this is just another small potatoes arguement. Anti-slide braking, if needed for higher speeds, is still a fairly cheap retrofit. Rebuild almost = new cost. No. A rebuild would not involve any changes to the carbody's basic structure. The cost to form, fabricate and cast the basic carbody, draft system and running gear are a major part of a car's cost. You can rebuild a car in-kind (with some upgrades) for about 1/2 the cost of new. Inboard bearings on Amfleet - are NOT a problem. They are pressed on cartridge roller bearings that are greased and sealed for wheel life and are very reliable and maintenance free (just like frt car bearings). The only problem with them is that wayside HBDs on the frt railroads don't "see" them, so the cars have a trainlined onboard system that has given fits from time to time. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply 12 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » 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 More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Originally posted by oltmannd Originally posted by uzurpator Originally posted by oltmannd Operationally, it could be done (you'd have to kick NJT out of some Penn Sta slots, tho'), but would the market support it? What headways support the max benefit for the least cost? I have never seen, read or heard anything that would support 15 minute headways. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, April 29, 2005 4:26 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd What "technology" of Amfleet is obsolete? I would suggest that there really is nothing new since the 70s on the car side. Suspension, electomagnetic brakes, air conditioning, shock absorption, lightweight materials, controlled braking - a few things did improve. besides - amfleet are getting older - soon they will show it with increasing maintenence. QUOTE: What do you base the 15 minute interval demand on? I remember reading a case, not too long ago in trains, that the frequency should be no more than hourly and the trains longer with several classes of accomodations - not more frequent. Ehem - having a station in the middle of cities with several million in population and running trains at hour tact is sorta weird. Besides - high frequency introduces "the train is always there" - thus increases ridership. Look at Europe - at the same distance you get hourly tact between cities helluva smaller then NY or Boston. Actually - at peak times some TGV lines are run with 3 minute headways. Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, May 2, 2005 7:12 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd What "technology" of Amfleet is obsolete? I would suggest that there really is nothing new since the 70s on the car side. Suspension, electomagnetic brakes, air conditioning, shock absorption, lightweight materials, controlled braking - a few things did improve. besides - amfleet are getting older - soon they will show it with increasing maintenence. QUOTE: What do you base the 15 minute interval demand on? I remember reading a case, not too long ago in trains, that the frequency should be no more than hourly and the trains longer with several classes of accomodations - not more frequent. Ehem - having a station in the middle of cities with several million in population and running trains at hour tact is sorta weird. Besides - high frequency introduces "the train is always there" - thus increases ridership. Look at Europe - at the same distance you get hourly tact between cities helluva smaller then NY or Boston. Actually - at peak times some TGV lines are run with 3 minute headways. Nice opinions. I disagree. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, May 2, 2005 7:45 AM Did Mr. Gunn say anything about Amtrak ownership of the corridor west of New Haven, currently owned by CDOT and Metro-North? Reply Edit spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, May 2, 2005 7:45 AM Actually once you get past the "romance" of riding a train there really is no real reason to keep A/trak going beyond the NEC. I compare it to the "International Space Station" which is another government boondoggle in my opinion. [:o)][:D][:)] Originally posted by donclark [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply daveklepper Member sinceJune 2002 20,096 posts Posted by daveklepper on Monday, May 2, 2005 8:39 AM First of all, David Gunn was not running the show when Acela was designed and did not have any say in reviewing the bid proposals. He was simply faced with the task of making the darn thing work. Second, yes in my opinion, Amtrak could be profitable: The $14Billion for the big dig is peanuts compared with the total spent for investment in highway and airport infrastructure. Amtrak can be profitable if first about $400Billion is spent for Amtrak investment, including capacity enhancement for high-speed running on selected congested freight lines used by Amtrak, a NSta-SSta Boston rail connection, complete repairs to the Corridor, renewal of all critical components, both hotel and running gear, on all Amfleet, Horizen, and Superliner equipment, overhauling of Acela equipment and Bombardier locomotives to incorporate everything that the Wilmington Shope people have learned, enhancement of the total rolling stock with new equipment so critical links can be restored, such as Florida-Atlanta-Cincinnati-Chicago, and increased frequencies so CZ can be daily and supplemented by a Chi-Denver train, so Cleveland can have service east and west at a reasonable hour, etc. Then price the service to meet the demand, following airline practice to keep the trains full during slack periods and charge what the traffic will bear during peak periods. Do not run social service operations like commuter trains to remove highway congestion unless local state or authority organizations pay for the subsidy. The high speed corridor trains will then truly be competitive with air travel and should charge accordingly. The long distance trains should be considered as cruise ships on land and charge accordingly except for reduced fares for those with medical problems that cannot fly or cannot drive long distances, and their fares do deserve a government subsidy in my opinion. Similarly with maintaining communications in harsh winter weather in the Northwest. Short of that, the $Billion subsidy Amtrak requires is peanuts compared to the total transportation expenditures and is well worth what it buys, in my opinion. Amtrak's own reform plan should be adopted and fully funded. Reply gabe Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Indianapolis, Indiana 2,434 posts Posted by gabe on Monday, May 2, 2005 8:48 AM I am not agreeing or disagreeing with you, Dave. But, barring a major energy crisis--which isn't out of the question--they will NEVER spend 400 Billion on Amtrak. I think all of the railroads in the United States could be bought for about 90 Billion. Gabe Reply Modelcar Member sinceFebruary 2002 From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania 13,456 posts Posted by Modelcar on Monday, May 2, 2005 9:00 AM ....And suitable improvements for Amtrak could be made for much less than the 400B....If conditions were suitable and facilities were up to good standards I believe plenty of folks would like to travel via train...In comfort and not as what the comfort level has become on air travel. Quentin Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, May 2, 2005 12:12 PM We could spend trillions on them but outside of the NEC unless they own the tracks, dispatch the trains, contril the trains A/trak will continue to provide poor service. Just my opinion. [:o)][8D] Originally posted by Modelcar [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, May 2, 2005 12:17 PM Here is the original post about the 15 minutes. I was only imparting what I know about headways on the NEC QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Why the new cars? What's wrong with Amfleet? What would they do with all the displaced Amfleet? Why the new cars? Because a service like Boston - Wash should be run with 15 minute interval. If not more. What's wrong with Amfleet? Apart from being late 70ties technology - nothing much. What would they do with all the displaced Amfleet? I heard that LD trains long for new equipment. This post has been edited by uzurpator on 27 QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Maybe he means better suspension & maybe leaning into curves. I would suspect that the NEC ould easily support trains with 15 minute headways with the signal system now in place. Heck between commuter & A/trak trains I would think even 15 minutes would be a long period. I know that the tunnel between NJ & Penn Station NY can handle a ttrain every 3 minutes. That would mean the signal system is geared for that time frame. [:D][:p] Originally posted by oltmannd Originally posted by uzurpator Originally posted by oltmannd Operationally, it could be done (you'd have to kick NJT out of some Penn Sta slots, tho'), but would the market support it? What headways support the max benefit for the least cost? I have never seen, read or heard anything that would support 15 minute headways. Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, May 2, 2005 12:22 PM Gabe unless Amtrak can dispatch their own trains no matter how much $$$$ is given to them in my opinion the same poor service will continue. It is the RRs who own the ROW mentality that keeps A/trak from performing. In my opinion the RRs consider it a pain in the neck to operate A/trak as it screws up there freights [:o)][8D] Originally posted by gabe Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, May 2, 2005 12:33 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Nice opinions. I disagree. If you just disagree, then your disagreement is worthless. Care to back it up? BTW - how is progress in car technology an opinion? Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, May 2, 2005 12:40 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd What "technology" of Amfleet is obsolete? I would suggest that there really is nothing new since the 70s on the car side. Suspension, electomagnetic brakes, air conditioning, shock absorption, lightweight materials, controlled braking - a few things did improve. besides - amfleet are getting older - soon they will show it with increasing maintenence. You make a case for rebuilding Amfleet, not scrapping it. Suspension - nothing new in the past 50 years. Electromagnetic brakes - huh? The only ones I know of are trolley car track brakes. Is this what you mean? Air conditioning - nothing new, other than controls and refrig. type, in the past 50 years. Shock absorbtion - viscous damping is viscous damping. Friction damping is friction damping. Nothing new here since the 1960s. Lightweight materials - such as? You COULD make a passenger car out of aluminum or composites, but what would be the point? You still have to make 1M lbs buff and materials other than steel have fatigue life issues. Controlled braking - anti-slide braking to reduce stopping distances has been around since the 1940s. The controls for it are better, but the basic technology is the same. Amfleet was built with EP braking, but Amtrak removed it. It wasn't needed, even on 18 cars trains. What about the age of Amfleet will make maintenance increase? If you rebuild in kind, you reset the clock, get "like new" performance, at roughly half the cost of new. You can even "reset" the fatigue life clock on steel castings or weldments by stress relieving them. At roughly 30 years, you have to rewire, which is a pain, but affords an opportunity to update some systems. Amfleet is certainly good enough for 100 -125 mph service. 20+ years in Metroliner service proves that. What Amtrak needs is more places to run 100-125 mph. Lets not waste what capital money that comes along on new passenger cars. Does anyone know if the Capstone program includes rewiring? If it does, those cars are good for another 30 years - with periodic truck overhauls. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, May 2, 2005 1:30 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd You make a case for rebuilding Amfleet, not scrapping it. Suspension - nothing new in the past 50 years. Air suspension, suspension optimised for humans in the way it osccilates, computer controlled etc etc... http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/sr10.html QUOTE: Electromagnetic brakes - huh? The only ones I know of are trolley car track brakes. Is this what you mean? Pretty much - most of european high speed (125 mph+) equipment has them installed - they make quick stop in emrgency. While in trolley cars they were used forsome time, but were recently introduced into psgr stock. [deleted some] Of course there are also magnetic induction brakes, but that is for 140mph+ speeds. Since america will not have such trains in any forseeable future... http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/research.html#brakes QUOTE: Air conditioning - nothing new, other than controls and refrig. type, in the past 50 years. Seesh - there was air conditioning in ancient Egypt. The point is that air conditioning of the 70'ties is different to air conditioning of now. The principle is the same, but applied and controlled differently. QUOTE: Shock absorbtion - viscous damping is viscous damping. Friction damping is friction damping. Nothing new here since the 1960s. I was more concerned about crashworthiness here - you know finite element CAD designed cars and such. Lower weight with higher buff strength etc. QUOTE: Lightweight materials - such as? You COULD make a passenger car out of aluminum or composites, but what would be the point? You still have to make 1M lbs buff and materials other than steel have fatigue life issues. TGV Duplex cars use aluminum side walls - allowing double deck trainset with 17 tonnes axleload. ICE3 uses special seat construction which saves about 2 tons of car weight. The cage of the car - the buff strength part - can be made of steel. The rest is the field to show progress. QUOTE: Controlled braking - anti-slide braking to reduce stopping distances has been around since the 1940s. The controls for it are better, but the basic technology is the same. Amfleet was built with EP braking, but Amtrak removed it. It wasn't needed, even on 18 cars trains. AC traction was avalible in 50ties. It happened to be usable just recently. You see the difference? QUOTE: What about the age of Amfleet will make maintenance increase? If you rebuild in kind, you reset the clock, get "like new" performance, at roughly half the cost of new. You can even "reset" the fatigue life clock on steel castings or weldments by stress relieving them. At roughly 30 years, you have to rewire, which is a pain, but affords an opportunity to update some systems. The general rebuild you propose is just like building a new car. And cost just about the same. You can rewire, change seat configuration, add fancy electronics etc. But once you start to fiddle with the car cage or load bearing elements - you just might build a new car. QUOTE: Amfleet is certainly good enough for 100 -125 mph service. 20+ years in Metroliner service proves that. What Amtrak needs is more places to run 100-125 mph. Lets not waste what capital money that comes along on new passenger cars. Good enough is not _best_ you could get for the price. QUOTE: Does anyone know if the Capstone program includes rewiring? If it does, those cars are good for another 30 years - with periodic truck overhauls. BTW - I imagine that the inside bearings on amfleet are maintenece nightmares. Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Tuesday, May 3, 2005 12:29 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd You make a case for rebuilding Amfleet, not scrapping it. Suspension - nothing new in the past 50 years. Air suspension, suspension optimised for humans in the way it osccilates, computer controlled etc etc... http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/sr10.html QUOTE: Electromagnetic brakes - huh? The only ones I know of are trolley car track brakes. Is this what you mean? Pretty much - most of european high speed (125 mph+) equipment has them installed - they make quick stop in emrgency. While in trolley cars they were used forsome time, but were recently introduced into psgr stock. [deleted some] Of course there are also magnetic induction brakes, but that is for 140mph+ speeds. Since america will not have such trains in any forseeable future... http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/research.html#brakes QUOTE: Air conditioning - nothing new, other than controls and refrig. type, in the past 50 years. Seesh - there was air conditioning in ancient Egypt. The point is that air conditioning of the 70'ties is different to air conditioning of now. The principle is the same, but applied and controlled differently. QUOTE: Shock absorbtion - viscous damping is viscous damping. Friction damping is friction damping. Nothing new here since the 1960s. I was more concerned about crashworthiness here - you know finite element CAD designed cars and such. Lower weight with higher buff strength etc. QUOTE: Lightweight materials - such as? You COULD make a passenger car out of aluminum or composites, but what would be the point? You still have to make 1M lbs buff and materials other than steel have fatigue life issues. TGV Duplex cars use aluminum side walls - allowing double deck trainset with 17 tonnes axleload. ICE3 uses special seat construction which saves about 2 tons of car weight. The cage of the car - the buff strength part - can be made of steel. The rest is the field to show progress. QUOTE: Controlled braking - anti-slide braking to reduce stopping distances has been around since the 1940s. The controls for it are better, but the basic technology is the same. Amfleet was built with EP braking, but Amtrak removed it. It wasn't needed, even on 18 cars trains. AC traction was avalible in 50ties. It happened to be usable just recently. You see the difference? QUOTE: What about the age of Amfleet will make maintenance increase? If you rebuild in kind, you reset the clock, get "like new" performance, at roughly half the cost of new. You can even "reset" the fatigue life clock on steel castings or weldments by stress relieving them. At roughly 30 years, you have to rewire, which is a pain, but affords an opportunity to update some systems. The general rebuild you propose is just like building a new car. And cost just about the same. You can rewire, change seat configuration, add fancy electronics etc. But once you start to fiddle with the car cage or load bearing elements - you just might build a new car. QUOTE: Amfleet is certainly good enough for 100 -125 mph service. 20+ years in Metroliner service proves that. What Amtrak needs is more places to run 100-125 mph. Lets not waste what capital money that comes along on new passenger cars. Good enough is not _best_ you could get for the price. QUOTE: Does anyone know if the Capstone program includes rewiring? If it does, those cars are good for another 30 years - with periodic truck overhauls. BTW - I imagine that the inside bearings on amfleet are maintenece nightmares. Suspension - pnuematic suspension is common in the US and has been. That you can add decent computer simulation to the design, reduces testing costs, not quality of final product. Braking - induction rail braking - this is new and very cool, but as you said, not needed for 125mph. Locomotive hauled Amfleet trains already have the 3 other kinds of braking - dynamic, disc and tread, just like TGV, just lower capacity - an all that's needed for 125 mph. HVAC - microprocessor controlled is better - but very cheap to retrofit. Not even a small part of "new is better than rebuild" part. Finite element design vs. pencil and paper - I agree you could shave a bit of weight out, but, again, this is small potatoes for a rail car - unlike a airliner. Braking - I think your analogy w/AC traction is one of improved technology. I'll agree, but this is just another small potatoes arguement. Anti-slide braking, if needed for higher speeds, is still a fairly cheap retrofit. Rebuild almost = new cost. No. A rebuild would not involve any changes to the carbody's basic structure. The cost to form, fabricate and cast the basic carbody, draft system and running gear are a major part of a car's cost. You can rebuild a car in-kind (with some upgrades) for about 1/2 the cost of new. Inboard bearings on Amfleet - are NOT a problem. They are pressed on cartridge roller bearings that are greased and sealed for wheel life and are very reliable and maintenance free (just like frt car bearings). The only problem with them is that wayside HBDs on the frt railroads don't "see" them, so the cars have a trainlined onboard system that has given fits from time to time. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply 12 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » 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 More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Originally posted by uzurpator Originally posted by oltmannd Operationally, it could be done (you'd have to kick NJT out of some Penn Sta slots, tho'), but would the market support it? What headways support the max benefit for the least cost? I have never seen, read or heard anything that would support 15 minute headways. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, April 29, 2005 4:26 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd What "technology" of Amfleet is obsolete? I would suggest that there really is nothing new since the 70s on the car side. Suspension, electomagnetic brakes, air conditioning, shock absorption, lightweight materials, controlled braking - a few things did improve. besides - amfleet are getting older - soon they will show it with increasing maintenence. QUOTE: What do you base the 15 minute interval demand on? I remember reading a case, not too long ago in trains, that the frequency should be no more than hourly and the trains longer with several classes of accomodations - not more frequent. Ehem - having a station in the middle of cities with several million in population and running trains at hour tact is sorta weird. Besides - high frequency introduces "the train is always there" - thus increases ridership. Look at Europe - at the same distance you get hourly tact between cities helluva smaller then NY or Boston. Actually - at peak times some TGV lines are run with 3 minute headways. Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, May 2, 2005 7:12 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd What "technology" of Amfleet is obsolete? I would suggest that there really is nothing new since the 70s on the car side. Suspension, electomagnetic brakes, air conditioning, shock absorption, lightweight materials, controlled braking - a few things did improve. besides - amfleet are getting older - soon they will show it with increasing maintenence. QUOTE: What do you base the 15 minute interval demand on? I remember reading a case, not too long ago in trains, that the frequency should be no more than hourly and the trains longer with several classes of accomodations - not more frequent. Ehem - having a station in the middle of cities with several million in population and running trains at hour tact is sorta weird. Besides - high frequency introduces "the train is always there" - thus increases ridership. Look at Europe - at the same distance you get hourly tact between cities helluva smaller then NY or Boston. Actually - at peak times some TGV lines are run with 3 minute headways. Nice opinions. I disagree. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, May 2, 2005 7:45 AM Did Mr. Gunn say anything about Amtrak ownership of the corridor west of New Haven, currently owned by CDOT and Metro-North? Reply Edit spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, May 2, 2005 7:45 AM Actually once you get past the "romance" of riding a train there really is no real reason to keep A/trak going beyond the NEC. I compare it to the "International Space Station" which is another government boondoggle in my opinion. [:o)][:D][:)] Originally posted by donclark [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply daveklepper Member sinceJune 2002 20,096 posts Posted by daveklepper on Monday, May 2, 2005 8:39 AM First of all, David Gunn was not running the show when Acela was designed and did not have any say in reviewing the bid proposals. He was simply faced with the task of making the darn thing work. Second, yes in my opinion, Amtrak could be profitable: The $14Billion for the big dig is peanuts compared with the total spent for investment in highway and airport infrastructure. Amtrak can be profitable if first about $400Billion is spent for Amtrak investment, including capacity enhancement for high-speed running on selected congested freight lines used by Amtrak, a NSta-SSta Boston rail connection, complete repairs to the Corridor, renewal of all critical components, both hotel and running gear, on all Amfleet, Horizen, and Superliner equipment, overhauling of Acela equipment and Bombardier locomotives to incorporate everything that the Wilmington Shope people have learned, enhancement of the total rolling stock with new equipment so critical links can be restored, such as Florida-Atlanta-Cincinnati-Chicago, and increased frequencies so CZ can be daily and supplemented by a Chi-Denver train, so Cleveland can have service east and west at a reasonable hour, etc. Then price the service to meet the demand, following airline practice to keep the trains full during slack periods and charge what the traffic will bear during peak periods. Do not run social service operations like commuter trains to remove highway congestion unless local state or authority organizations pay for the subsidy. The high speed corridor trains will then truly be competitive with air travel and should charge accordingly. The long distance trains should be considered as cruise ships on land and charge accordingly except for reduced fares for those with medical problems that cannot fly or cannot drive long distances, and their fares do deserve a government subsidy in my opinion. Similarly with maintaining communications in harsh winter weather in the Northwest. Short of that, the $Billion subsidy Amtrak requires is peanuts compared to the total transportation expenditures and is well worth what it buys, in my opinion. Amtrak's own reform plan should be adopted and fully funded. Reply gabe Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Indianapolis, Indiana 2,434 posts Posted by gabe on Monday, May 2, 2005 8:48 AM I am not agreeing or disagreeing with you, Dave. But, barring a major energy crisis--which isn't out of the question--they will NEVER spend 400 Billion on Amtrak. I think all of the railroads in the United States could be bought for about 90 Billion. Gabe Reply Modelcar Member sinceFebruary 2002 From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania 13,456 posts Posted by Modelcar on Monday, May 2, 2005 9:00 AM ....And suitable improvements for Amtrak could be made for much less than the 400B....If conditions were suitable and facilities were up to good standards I believe plenty of folks would like to travel via train...In comfort and not as what the comfort level has become on air travel. Quentin Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, May 2, 2005 12:12 PM We could spend trillions on them but outside of the NEC unless they own the tracks, dispatch the trains, contril the trains A/trak will continue to provide poor service. Just my opinion. [:o)][8D] Originally posted by Modelcar [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, May 2, 2005 12:17 PM Here is the original post about the 15 minutes. I was only imparting what I know about headways on the NEC QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Why the new cars? What's wrong with Amfleet? What would they do with all the displaced Amfleet? Why the new cars? Because a service like Boston - Wash should be run with 15 minute interval. If not more. What's wrong with Amfleet? Apart from being late 70ties technology - nothing much. What would they do with all the displaced Amfleet? I heard that LD trains long for new equipment. This post has been edited by uzurpator on 27 QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Maybe he means better suspension & maybe leaning into curves. I would suspect that the NEC ould easily support trains with 15 minute headways with the signal system now in place. Heck between commuter & A/trak trains I would think even 15 minutes would be a long period. I know that the tunnel between NJ & Penn Station NY can handle a ttrain every 3 minutes. That would mean the signal system is geared for that time frame. [:D][:p] Originally posted by oltmannd Originally posted by uzurpator Originally posted by oltmannd Operationally, it could be done (you'd have to kick NJT out of some Penn Sta slots, tho'), but would the market support it? What headways support the max benefit for the least cost? I have never seen, read or heard anything that would support 15 minute headways. Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, May 2, 2005 12:22 PM Gabe unless Amtrak can dispatch their own trains no matter how much $$$$ is given to them in my opinion the same poor service will continue. It is the RRs who own the ROW mentality that keeps A/trak from performing. In my opinion the RRs consider it a pain in the neck to operate A/trak as it screws up there freights [:o)][8D] Originally posted by gabe Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, May 2, 2005 12:33 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Nice opinions. I disagree. If you just disagree, then your disagreement is worthless. Care to back it up? BTW - how is progress in car technology an opinion? Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, May 2, 2005 12:40 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd What "technology" of Amfleet is obsolete? I would suggest that there really is nothing new since the 70s on the car side. Suspension, electomagnetic brakes, air conditioning, shock absorption, lightweight materials, controlled braking - a few things did improve. besides - amfleet are getting older - soon they will show it with increasing maintenence. You make a case for rebuilding Amfleet, not scrapping it. Suspension - nothing new in the past 50 years. Electromagnetic brakes - huh? The only ones I know of are trolley car track brakes. Is this what you mean? Air conditioning - nothing new, other than controls and refrig. type, in the past 50 years. Shock absorbtion - viscous damping is viscous damping. Friction damping is friction damping. Nothing new here since the 1960s. Lightweight materials - such as? You COULD make a passenger car out of aluminum or composites, but what would be the point? You still have to make 1M lbs buff and materials other than steel have fatigue life issues. Controlled braking - anti-slide braking to reduce stopping distances has been around since the 1940s. The controls for it are better, but the basic technology is the same. Amfleet was built with EP braking, but Amtrak removed it. It wasn't needed, even on 18 cars trains. What about the age of Amfleet will make maintenance increase? If you rebuild in kind, you reset the clock, get "like new" performance, at roughly half the cost of new. You can even "reset" the fatigue life clock on steel castings or weldments by stress relieving them. At roughly 30 years, you have to rewire, which is a pain, but affords an opportunity to update some systems. Amfleet is certainly good enough for 100 -125 mph service. 20+ years in Metroliner service proves that. What Amtrak needs is more places to run 100-125 mph. Lets not waste what capital money that comes along on new passenger cars. Does anyone know if the Capstone program includes rewiring? If it does, those cars are good for another 30 years - with periodic truck overhauls. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, May 2, 2005 1:30 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd You make a case for rebuilding Amfleet, not scrapping it. Suspension - nothing new in the past 50 years. Air suspension, suspension optimised for humans in the way it osccilates, computer controlled etc etc... http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/sr10.html QUOTE: Electromagnetic brakes - huh? The only ones I know of are trolley car track brakes. Is this what you mean? Pretty much - most of european high speed (125 mph+) equipment has them installed - they make quick stop in emrgency. While in trolley cars they were used forsome time, but were recently introduced into psgr stock. [deleted some] Of course there are also magnetic induction brakes, but that is for 140mph+ speeds. Since america will not have such trains in any forseeable future... http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/research.html#brakes QUOTE: Air conditioning - nothing new, other than controls and refrig. type, in the past 50 years. Seesh - there was air conditioning in ancient Egypt. The point is that air conditioning of the 70'ties is different to air conditioning of now. The principle is the same, but applied and controlled differently. QUOTE: Shock absorbtion - viscous damping is viscous damping. Friction damping is friction damping. Nothing new here since the 1960s. I was more concerned about crashworthiness here - you know finite element CAD designed cars and such. Lower weight with higher buff strength etc. QUOTE: Lightweight materials - such as? You COULD make a passenger car out of aluminum or composites, but what would be the point? You still have to make 1M lbs buff and materials other than steel have fatigue life issues. TGV Duplex cars use aluminum side walls - allowing double deck trainset with 17 tonnes axleload. ICE3 uses special seat construction which saves about 2 tons of car weight. The cage of the car - the buff strength part - can be made of steel. The rest is the field to show progress. QUOTE: Controlled braking - anti-slide braking to reduce stopping distances has been around since the 1940s. The controls for it are better, but the basic technology is the same. Amfleet was built with EP braking, but Amtrak removed it. It wasn't needed, even on 18 cars trains. AC traction was avalible in 50ties. It happened to be usable just recently. You see the difference? QUOTE: What about the age of Amfleet will make maintenance increase? If you rebuild in kind, you reset the clock, get "like new" performance, at roughly half the cost of new. You can even "reset" the fatigue life clock on steel castings or weldments by stress relieving them. At roughly 30 years, you have to rewire, which is a pain, but affords an opportunity to update some systems. The general rebuild you propose is just like building a new car. And cost just about the same. You can rewire, change seat configuration, add fancy electronics etc. But once you start to fiddle with the car cage or load bearing elements - you just might build a new car. QUOTE: Amfleet is certainly good enough for 100 -125 mph service. 20+ years in Metroliner service proves that. What Amtrak needs is more places to run 100-125 mph. Lets not waste what capital money that comes along on new passenger cars. Good enough is not _best_ you could get for the price. QUOTE: Does anyone know if the Capstone program includes rewiring? If it does, those cars are good for another 30 years - with periodic truck overhauls. BTW - I imagine that the inside bearings on amfleet are maintenece nightmares. Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Tuesday, May 3, 2005 12:29 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd You make a case for rebuilding Amfleet, not scrapping it. Suspension - nothing new in the past 50 years. Air suspension, suspension optimised for humans in the way it osccilates, computer controlled etc etc... http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/sr10.html QUOTE: Electromagnetic brakes - huh? The only ones I know of are trolley car track brakes. Is this what you mean? Pretty much - most of european high speed (125 mph+) equipment has them installed - they make quick stop in emrgency. While in trolley cars they were used forsome time, but were recently introduced into psgr stock. [deleted some] Of course there are also magnetic induction brakes, but that is for 140mph+ speeds. Since america will not have such trains in any forseeable future... http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/research.html#brakes QUOTE: Air conditioning - nothing new, other than controls and refrig. type, in the past 50 years. Seesh - there was air conditioning in ancient Egypt. The point is that air conditioning of the 70'ties is different to air conditioning of now. The principle is the same, but applied and controlled differently. QUOTE: Shock absorbtion - viscous damping is viscous damping. Friction damping is friction damping. Nothing new here since the 1960s. I was more concerned about crashworthiness here - you know finite element CAD designed cars and such. Lower weight with higher buff strength etc. QUOTE: Lightweight materials - such as? You COULD make a passenger car out of aluminum or composites, but what would be the point? You still have to make 1M lbs buff and materials other than steel have fatigue life issues. TGV Duplex cars use aluminum side walls - allowing double deck trainset with 17 tonnes axleload. ICE3 uses special seat construction which saves about 2 tons of car weight. The cage of the car - the buff strength part - can be made of steel. The rest is the field to show progress. QUOTE: Controlled braking - anti-slide braking to reduce stopping distances has been around since the 1940s. The controls for it are better, but the basic technology is the same. Amfleet was built with EP braking, but Amtrak removed it. It wasn't needed, even on 18 cars trains. AC traction was avalible in 50ties. It happened to be usable just recently. You see the difference? QUOTE: What about the age of Amfleet will make maintenance increase? If you rebuild in kind, you reset the clock, get "like new" performance, at roughly half the cost of new. You can even "reset" the fatigue life clock on steel castings or weldments by stress relieving them. At roughly 30 years, you have to rewire, which is a pain, but affords an opportunity to update some systems. The general rebuild you propose is just like building a new car. And cost just about the same. You can rewire, change seat configuration, add fancy electronics etc. But once you start to fiddle with the car cage or load bearing elements - you just might build a new car. QUOTE: Amfleet is certainly good enough for 100 -125 mph service. 20+ years in Metroliner service proves that. What Amtrak needs is more places to run 100-125 mph. Lets not waste what capital money that comes along on new passenger cars. Good enough is not _best_ you could get for the price. QUOTE: Does anyone know if the Capstone program includes rewiring? If it does, those cars are good for another 30 years - with periodic truck overhauls. BTW - I imagine that the inside bearings on amfleet are maintenece nightmares. Suspension - pnuematic suspension is common in the US and has been. That you can add decent computer simulation to the design, reduces testing costs, not quality of final product. Braking - induction rail braking - this is new and very cool, but as you said, not needed for 125mph. Locomotive hauled Amfleet trains already have the 3 other kinds of braking - dynamic, disc and tread, just like TGV, just lower capacity - an all that's needed for 125 mph. HVAC - microprocessor controlled is better - but very cheap to retrofit. Not even a small part of "new is better than rebuild" part. Finite element design vs. pencil and paper - I agree you could shave a bit of weight out, but, again, this is small potatoes for a rail car - unlike a airliner. Braking - I think your analogy w/AC traction is one of improved technology. I'll agree, but this is just another small potatoes arguement. Anti-slide braking, if needed for higher speeds, is still a fairly cheap retrofit. Rebuild almost = new cost. No. A rebuild would not involve any changes to the carbody's basic structure. The cost to form, fabricate and cast the basic carbody, draft system and running gear are a major part of a car's cost. You can rebuild a car in-kind (with some upgrades) for about 1/2 the cost of new. Inboard bearings on Amfleet - are NOT a problem. They are pressed on cartridge roller bearings that are greased and sealed for wheel life and are very reliable and maintenance free (just like frt car bearings). The only problem with them is that wayside HBDs on the frt railroads don't "see" them, so the cars have a trainlined onboard system that has given fits from time to time. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply 12 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » 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 More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Originally posted by oltmannd
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd What "technology" of Amfleet is obsolete? I would suggest that there really is nothing new since the 70s on the car side.
QUOTE: What do you base the 15 minute interval demand on? I remember reading a case, not too long ago in trains, that the frequency should be no more than hourly and the trains longer with several classes of accomodations - not more frequent.
QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd What "technology" of Amfleet is obsolete? I would suggest that there really is nothing new since the 70s on the car side. Suspension, electomagnetic brakes, air conditioning, shock absorption, lightweight materials, controlled braking - a few things did improve. besides - amfleet are getting older - soon they will show it with increasing maintenence. QUOTE: What do you base the 15 minute interval demand on? I remember reading a case, not too long ago in trains, that the frequency should be no more than hourly and the trains longer with several classes of accomodations - not more frequent. Ehem - having a station in the middle of cities with several million in population and running trains at hour tact is sorta weird. Besides - high frequency introduces "the train is always there" - thus increases ridership. Look at Europe - at the same distance you get hourly tact between cities helluva smaller then NY or Boston. Actually - at peak times some TGV lines are run with 3 minute headways.
Originally posted by donclark [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply daveklepper Member sinceJune 2002 20,096 posts Posted by daveklepper on Monday, May 2, 2005 8:39 AM First of all, David Gunn was not running the show when Acela was designed and did not have any say in reviewing the bid proposals. He was simply faced with the task of making the darn thing work. Second, yes in my opinion, Amtrak could be profitable: The $14Billion for the big dig is peanuts compared with the total spent for investment in highway and airport infrastructure. Amtrak can be profitable if first about $400Billion is spent for Amtrak investment, including capacity enhancement for high-speed running on selected congested freight lines used by Amtrak, a NSta-SSta Boston rail connection, complete repairs to the Corridor, renewal of all critical components, both hotel and running gear, on all Amfleet, Horizen, and Superliner equipment, overhauling of Acela equipment and Bombardier locomotives to incorporate everything that the Wilmington Shope people have learned, enhancement of the total rolling stock with new equipment so critical links can be restored, such as Florida-Atlanta-Cincinnati-Chicago, and increased frequencies so CZ can be daily and supplemented by a Chi-Denver train, so Cleveland can have service east and west at a reasonable hour, etc. Then price the service to meet the demand, following airline practice to keep the trains full during slack periods and charge what the traffic will bear during peak periods. Do not run social service operations like commuter trains to remove highway congestion unless local state or authority organizations pay for the subsidy. The high speed corridor trains will then truly be competitive with air travel and should charge accordingly. The long distance trains should be considered as cruise ships on land and charge accordingly except for reduced fares for those with medical problems that cannot fly or cannot drive long distances, and their fares do deserve a government subsidy in my opinion. Similarly with maintaining communications in harsh winter weather in the Northwest. Short of that, the $Billion subsidy Amtrak requires is peanuts compared to the total transportation expenditures and is well worth what it buys, in my opinion. Amtrak's own reform plan should be adopted and fully funded. Reply gabe Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Indianapolis, Indiana 2,434 posts Posted by gabe on Monday, May 2, 2005 8:48 AM I am not agreeing or disagreeing with you, Dave. But, barring a major energy crisis--which isn't out of the question--they will NEVER spend 400 Billion on Amtrak. I think all of the railroads in the United States could be bought for about 90 Billion. Gabe Reply Modelcar Member sinceFebruary 2002 From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania 13,456 posts Posted by Modelcar on Monday, May 2, 2005 9:00 AM ....And suitable improvements for Amtrak could be made for much less than the 400B....If conditions were suitable and facilities were up to good standards I believe plenty of folks would like to travel via train...In comfort and not as what the comfort level has become on air travel. Quentin Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, May 2, 2005 12:12 PM We could spend trillions on them but outside of the NEC unless they own the tracks, dispatch the trains, contril the trains A/trak will continue to provide poor service. Just my opinion. [:o)][8D] Originally posted by Modelcar [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, May 2, 2005 12:17 PM Here is the original post about the 15 minutes. I was only imparting what I know about headways on the NEC QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Why the new cars? What's wrong with Amfleet? What would they do with all the displaced Amfleet? Why the new cars? Because a service like Boston - Wash should be run with 15 minute interval. If not more. What's wrong with Amfleet? Apart from being late 70ties technology - nothing much. What would they do with all the displaced Amfleet? I heard that LD trains long for new equipment. This post has been edited by uzurpator on 27 QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Maybe he means better suspension & maybe leaning into curves. I would suspect that the NEC ould easily support trains with 15 minute headways with the signal system now in place. Heck between commuter & A/trak trains I would think even 15 minutes would be a long period. I know that the tunnel between NJ & Penn Station NY can handle a ttrain every 3 minutes. That would mean the signal system is geared for that time frame. [:D][:p] Originally posted by oltmannd Originally posted by uzurpator Originally posted by oltmannd Operationally, it could be done (you'd have to kick NJT out of some Penn Sta slots, tho'), but would the market support it? What headways support the max benefit for the least cost? I have never seen, read or heard anything that would support 15 minute headways. Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, May 2, 2005 12:22 PM Gabe unless Amtrak can dispatch their own trains no matter how much $$$$ is given to them in my opinion the same poor service will continue. It is the RRs who own the ROW mentality that keeps A/trak from performing. In my opinion the RRs consider it a pain in the neck to operate A/trak as it screws up there freights [:o)][8D] Originally posted by gabe Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, May 2, 2005 12:33 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Nice opinions. I disagree. If you just disagree, then your disagreement is worthless. Care to back it up? BTW - how is progress in car technology an opinion? Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, May 2, 2005 12:40 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd What "technology" of Amfleet is obsolete? I would suggest that there really is nothing new since the 70s on the car side. Suspension, electomagnetic brakes, air conditioning, shock absorption, lightweight materials, controlled braking - a few things did improve. besides - amfleet are getting older - soon they will show it with increasing maintenence. You make a case for rebuilding Amfleet, not scrapping it. Suspension - nothing new in the past 50 years. Electromagnetic brakes - huh? The only ones I know of are trolley car track brakes. Is this what you mean? Air conditioning - nothing new, other than controls and refrig. type, in the past 50 years. Shock absorbtion - viscous damping is viscous damping. Friction damping is friction damping. Nothing new here since the 1960s. Lightweight materials - such as? You COULD make a passenger car out of aluminum or composites, but what would be the point? You still have to make 1M lbs buff and materials other than steel have fatigue life issues. Controlled braking - anti-slide braking to reduce stopping distances has been around since the 1940s. The controls for it are better, but the basic technology is the same. Amfleet was built with EP braking, but Amtrak removed it. It wasn't needed, even on 18 cars trains. What about the age of Amfleet will make maintenance increase? If you rebuild in kind, you reset the clock, get "like new" performance, at roughly half the cost of new. You can even "reset" the fatigue life clock on steel castings or weldments by stress relieving them. At roughly 30 years, you have to rewire, which is a pain, but affords an opportunity to update some systems. Amfleet is certainly good enough for 100 -125 mph service. 20+ years in Metroliner service proves that. What Amtrak needs is more places to run 100-125 mph. Lets not waste what capital money that comes along on new passenger cars. Does anyone know if the Capstone program includes rewiring? If it does, those cars are good for another 30 years - with periodic truck overhauls. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, May 2, 2005 1:30 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd You make a case for rebuilding Amfleet, not scrapping it. Suspension - nothing new in the past 50 years. Air suspension, suspension optimised for humans in the way it osccilates, computer controlled etc etc... http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/sr10.html QUOTE: Electromagnetic brakes - huh? The only ones I know of are trolley car track brakes. Is this what you mean? Pretty much - most of european high speed (125 mph+) equipment has them installed - they make quick stop in emrgency. While in trolley cars they were used forsome time, but were recently introduced into psgr stock. [deleted some] Of course there are also magnetic induction brakes, but that is for 140mph+ speeds. Since america will not have such trains in any forseeable future... http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/research.html#brakes QUOTE: Air conditioning - nothing new, other than controls and refrig. type, in the past 50 years. Seesh - there was air conditioning in ancient Egypt. The point is that air conditioning of the 70'ties is different to air conditioning of now. The principle is the same, but applied and controlled differently. QUOTE: Shock absorbtion - viscous damping is viscous damping. Friction damping is friction damping. Nothing new here since the 1960s. I was more concerned about crashworthiness here - you know finite element CAD designed cars and such. Lower weight with higher buff strength etc. QUOTE: Lightweight materials - such as? You COULD make a passenger car out of aluminum or composites, but what would be the point? You still have to make 1M lbs buff and materials other than steel have fatigue life issues. TGV Duplex cars use aluminum side walls - allowing double deck trainset with 17 tonnes axleload. ICE3 uses special seat construction which saves about 2 tons of car weight. The cage of the car - the buff strength part - can be made of steel. The rest is the field to show progress. QUOTE: Controlled braking - anti-slide braking to reduce stopping distances has been around since the 1940s. The controls for it are better, but the basic technology is the same. Amfleet was built with EP braking, but Amtrak removed it. It wasn't needed, even on 18 cars trains. AC traction was avalible in 50ties. It happened to be usable just recently. You see the difference? QUOTE: What about the age of Amfleet will make maintenance increase? If you rebuild in kind, you reset the clock, get "like new" performance, at roughly half the cost of new. You can even "reset" the fatigue life clock on steel castings or weldments by stress relieving them. At roughly 30 years, you have to rewire, which is a pain, but affords an opportunity to update some systems. The general rebuild you propose is just like building a new car. And cost just about the same. You can rewire, change seat configuration, add fancy electronics etc. But once you start to fiddle with the car cage or load bearing elements - you just might build a new car. QUOTE: Amfleet is certainly good enough for 100 -125 mph service. 20+ years in Metroliner service proves that. What Amtrak needs is more places to run 100-125 mph. Lets not waste what capital money that comes along on new passenger cars. Good enough is not _best_ you could get for the price. QUOTE: Does anyone know if the Capstone program includes rewiring? If it does, those cars are good for another 30 years - with periodic truck overhauls. BTW - I imagine that the inside bearings on amfleet are maintenece nightmares. Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Tuesday, May 3, 2005 12:29 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd You make a case for rebuilding Amfleet, not scrapping it. Suspension - nothing new in the past 50 years. Air suspension, suspension optimised for humans in the way it osccilates, computer controlled etc etc... http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/sr10.html QUOTE: Electromagnetic brakes - huh? The only ones I know of are trolley car track brakes. Is this what you mean? Pretty much - most of european high speed (125 mph+) equipment has them installed - they make quick stop in emrgency. While in trolley cars they were used forsome time, but were recently introduced into psgr stock. [deleted some] Of course there are also magnetic induction brakes, but that is for 140mph+ speeds. Since america will not have such trains in any forseeable future... http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/research.html#brakes QUOTE: Air conditioning - nothing new, other than controls and refrig. type, in the past 50 years. Seesh - there was air conditioning in ancient Egypt. The point is that air conditioning of the 70'ties is different to air conditioning of now. The principle is the same, but applied and controlled differently. QUOTE: Shock absorbtion - viscous damping is viscous damping. Friction damping is friction damping. Nothing new here since the 1960s. I was more concerned about crashworthiness here - you know finite element CAD designed cars and such. Lower weight with higher buff strength etc. QUOTE: Lightweight materials - such as? You COULD make a passenger car out of aluminum or composites, but what would be the point? You still have to make 1M lbs buff and materials other than steel have fatigue life issues. TGV Duplex cars use aluminum side walls - allowing double deck trainset with 17 tonnes axleload. ICE3 uses special seat construction which saves about 2 tons of car weight. The cage of the car - the buff strength part - can be made of steel. The rest is the field to show progress. QUOTE: Controlled braking - anti-slide braking to reduce stopping distances has been around since the 1940s. The controls for it are better, but the basic technology is the same. Amfleet was built with EP braking, but Amtrak removed it. It wasn't needed, even on 18 cars trains. AC traction was avalible in 50ties. It happened to be usable just recently. You see the difference? QUOTE: What about the age of Amfleet will make maintenance increase? If you rebuild in kind, you reset the clock, get "like new" performance, at roughly half the cost of new. You can even "reset" the fatigue life clock on steel castings or weldments by stress relieving them. At roughly 30 years, you have to rewire, which is a pain, but affords an opportunity to update some systems. The general rebuild you propose is just like building a new car. And cost just about the same. You can rewire, change seat configuration, add fancy electronics etc. But once you start to fiddle with the car cage or load bearing elements - you just might build a new car. QUOTE: Amfleet is certainly good enough for 100 -125 mph service. 20+ years in Metroliner service proves that. What Amtrak needs is more places to run 100-125 mph. Lets not waste what capital money that comes along on new passenger cars. Good enough is not _best_ you could get for the price. QUOTE: Does anyone know if the Capstone program includes rewiring? If it does, those cars are good for another 30 years - with periodic truck overhauls. BTW - I imagine that the inside bearings on amfleet are maintenece nightmares. Suspension - pnuematic suspension is common in the US and has been. That you can add decent computer simulation to the design, reduces testing costs, not quality of final product. Braking - induction rail braking - this is new and very cool, but as you said, not needed for 125mph. Locomotive hauled Amfleet trains already have the 3 other kinds of braking - dynamic, disc and tread, just like TGV, just lower capacity - an all that's needed for 125 mph. HVAC - microprocessor controlled is better - but very cheap to retrofit. Not even a small part of "new is better than rebuild" part. Finite element design vs. pencil and paper - I agree you could shave a bit of weight out, but, again, this is small potatoes for a rail car - unlike a airliner. Braking - I think your analogy w/AC traction is one of improved technology. I'll agree, but this is just another small potatoes arguement. Anti-slide braking, if needed for higher speeds, is still a fairly cheap retrofit. Rebuild almost = new cost. No. A rebuild would not involve any changes to the carbody's basic structure. The cost to form, fabricate and cast the basic carbody, draft system and running gear are a major part of a car's cost. You can rebuild a car in-kind (with some upgrades) for about 1/2 the cost of new. Inboard bearings on Amfleet - are NOT a problem. They are pressed on cartridge roller bearings that are greased and sealed for wheel life and are very reliable and maintenance free (just like frt car bearings). The only problem with them is that wayside HBDs on the frt railroads don't "see" them, so the cars have a trainlined onboard system that has given fits from time to time. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply 12 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » 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 More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub
Quentin
Originally posted by Modelcar [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, May 2, 2005 12:17 PM Here is the original post about the 15 minutes. I was only imparting what I know about headways on the NEC QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Why the new cars? What's wrong with Amfleet? What would they do with all the displaced Amfleet? Why the new cars? Because a service like Boston - Wash should be run with 15 minute interval. If not more. What's wrong with Amfleet? Apart from being late 70ties technology - nothing much. What would they do with all the displaced Amfleet? I heard that LD trains long for new equipment. This post has been edited by uzurpator on 27 QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Maybe he means better suspension & maybe leaning into curves. I would suspect that the NEC ould easily support trains with 15 minute headways with the signal system now in place. Heck between commuter & A/trak trains I would think even 15 minutes would be a long period. I know that the tunnel between NJ & Penn Station NY can handle a ttrain every 3 minutes. That would mean the signal system is geared for that time frame. [:D][:p] Originally posted by oltmannd Originally posted by uzurpator Originally posted by oltmannd Operationally, it could be done (you'd have to kick NJT out of some Penn Sta slots, tho'), but would the market support it? What headways support the max benefit for the least cost? I have never seen, read or heard anything that would support 15 minute headways. Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, May 2, 2005 12:22 PM Gabe unless Amtrak can dispatch their own trains no matter how much $$$$ is given to them in my opinion the same poor service will continue. It is the RRs who own the ROW mentality that keeps A/trak from performing. In my opinion the RRs consider it a pain in the neck to operate A/trak as it screws up there freights [:o)][8D] Originally posted by gabe Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, May 2, 2005 12:33 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Nice opinions. I disagree. If you just disagree, then your disagreement is worthless. Care to back it up? BTW - how is progress in car technology an opinion? Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, May 2, 2005 12:40 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd What "technology" of Amfleet is obsolete? I would suggest that there really is nothing new since the 70s on the car side. Suspension, electomagnetic brakes, air conditioning, shock absorption, lightweight materials, controlled braking - a few things did improve. besides - amfleet are getting older - soon they will show it with increasing maintenence. You make a case for rebuilding Amfleet, not scrapping it. Suspension - nothing new in the past 50 years. Electromagnetic brakes - huh? The only ones I know of are trolley car track brakes. Is this what you mean? Air conditioning - nothing new, other than controls and refrig. type, in the past 50 years. Shock absorbtion - viscous damping is viscous damping. Friction damping is friction damping. Nothing new here since the 1960s. Lightweight materials - such as? You COULD make a passenger car out of aluminum or composites, but what would be the point? You still have to make 1M lbs buff and materials other than steel have fatigue life issues. Controlled braking - anti-slide braking to reduce stopping distances has been around since the 1940s. The controls for it are better, but the basic technology is the same. Amfleet was built with EP braking, but Amtrak removed it. It wasn't needed, even on 18 cars trains. What about the age of Amfleet will make maintenance increase? If you rebuild in kind, you reset the clock, get "like new" performance, at roughly half the cost of new. You can even "reset" the fatigue life clock on steel castings or weldments by stress relieving them. At roughly 30 years, you have to rewire, which is a pain, but affords an opportunity to update some systems. Amfleet is certainly good enough for 100 -125 mph service. 20+ years in Metroliner service proves that. What Amtrak needs is more places to run 100-125 mph. Lets not waste what capital money that comes along on new passenger cars. Does anyone know if the Capstone program includes rewiring? If it does, those cars are good for another 30 years - with periodic truck overhauls. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, May 2, 2005 1:30 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd You make a case for rebuilding Amfleet, not scrapping it. Suspension - nothing new in the past 50 years. Air suspension, suspension optimised for humans in the way it osccilates, computer controlled etc etc... http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/sr10.html QUOTE: Electromagnetic brakes - huh? The only ones I know of are trolley car track brakes. Is this what you mean? Pretty much - most of european high speed (125 mph+) equipment has them installed - they make quick stop in emrgency. While in trolley cars they were used forsome time, but were recently introduced into psgr stock. [deleted some] Of course there are also magnetic induction brakes, but that is for 140mph+ speeds. Since america will not have such trains in any forseeable future... http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/research.html#brakes QUOTE: Air conditioning - nothing new, other than controls and refrig. type, in the past 50 years. Seesh - there was air conditioning in ancient Egypt. The point is that air conditioning of the 70'ties is different to air conditioning of now. The principle is the same, but applied and controlled differently. QUOTE: Shock absorbtion - viscous damping is viscous damping. Friction damping is friction damping. Nothing new here since the 1960s. I was more concerned about crashworthiness here - you know finite element CAD designed cars and such. Lower weight with higher buff strength etc. QUOTE: Lightweight materials - such as? You COULD make a passenger car out of aluminum or composites, but what would be the point? You still have to make 1M lbs buff and materials other than steel have fatigue life issues. TGV Duplex cars use aluminum side walls - allowing double deck trainset with 17 tonnes axleload. ICE3 uses special seat construction which saves about 2 tons of car weight. The cage of the car - the buff strength part - can be made of steel. The rest is the field to show progress. QUOTE: Controlled braking - anti-slide braking to reduce stopping distances has been around since the 1940s. The controls for it are better, but the basic technology is the same. Amfleet was built with EP braking, but Amtrak removed it. It wasn't needed, even on 18 cars trains. AC traction was avalible in 50ties. It happened to be usable just recently. You see the difference? QUOTE: What about the age of Amfleet will make maintenance increase? If you rebuild in kind, you reset the clock, get "like new" performance, at roughly half the cost of new. You can even "reset" the fatigue life clock on steel castings or weldments by stress relieving them. At roughly 30 years, you have to rewire, which is a pain, but affords an opportunity to update some systems. The general rebuild you propose is just like building a new car. And cost just about the same. You can rewire, change seat configuration, add fancy electronics etc. But once you start to fiddle with the car cage or load bearing elements - you just might build a new car. QUOTE: Amfleet is certainly good enough for 100 -125 mph service. 20+ years in Metroliner service proves that. What Amtrak needs is more places to run 100-125 mph. Lets not waste what capital money that comes along on new passenger cars. Good enough is not _best_ you could get for the price. QUOTE: Does anyone know if the Capstone program includes rewiring? If it does, those cars are good for another 30 years - with periodic truck overhauls. BTW - I imagine that the inside bearings on amfleet are maintenece nightmares. Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Tuesday, May 3, 2005 12:29 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd You make a case for rebuilding Amfleet, not scrapping it. Suspension - nothing new in the past 50 years. Air suspension, suspension optimised for humans in the way it osccilates, computer controlled etc etc... http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/sr10.html QUOTE: Electromagnetic brakes - huh? The only ones I know of are trolley car track brakes. Is this what you mean? Pretty much - most of european high speed (125 mph+) equipment has them installed - they make quick stop in emrgency. While in trolley cars they were used forsome time, but were recently introduced into psgr stock. [deleted some] Of course there are also magnetic induction brakes, but that is for 140mph+ speeds. Since america will not have such trains in any forseeable future... http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/research.html#brakes QUOTE: Air conditioning - nothing new, other than controls and refrig. type, in the past 50 years. Seesh - there was air conditioning in ancient Egypt. The point is that air conditioning of the 70'ties is different to air conditioning of now. The principle is the same, but applied and controlled differently. QUOTE: Shock absorbtion - viscous damping is viscous damping. Friction damping is friction damping. Nothing new here since the 1960s. I was more concerned about crashworthiness here - you know finite element CAD designed cars and such. Lower weight with higher buff strength etc. QUOTE: Lightweight materials - such as? You COULD make a passenger car out of aluminum or composites, but what would be the point? You still have to make 1M lbs buff and materials other than steel have fatigue life issues. TGV Duplex cars use aluminum side walls - allowing double deck trainset with 17 tonnes axleload. ICE3 uses special seat construction which saves about 2 tons of car weight. The cage of the car - the buff strength part - can be made of steel. The rest is the field to show progress. QUOTE: Controlled braking - anti-slide braking to reduce stopping distances has been around since the 1940s. The controls for it are better, but the basic technology is the same. Amfleet was built with EP braking, but Amtrak removed it. It wasn't needed, even on 18 cars trains. AC traction was avalible in 50ties. It happened to be usable just recently. You see the difference? QUOTE: What about the age of Amfleet will make maintenance increase? If you rebuild in kind, you reset the clock, get "like new" performance, at roughly half the cost of new. You can even "reset" the fatigue life clock on steel castings or weldments by stress relieving them. At roughly 30 years, you have to rewire, which is a pain, but affords an opportunity to update some systems. The general rebuild you propose is just like building a new car. And cost just about the same. You can rewire, change seat configuration, add fancy electronics etc. But once you start to fiddle with the car cage or load bearing elements - you just might build a new car. QUOTE: Amfleet is certainly good enough for 100 -125 mph service. 20+ years in Metroliner service proves that. What Amtrak needs is more places to run 100-125 mph. Lets not waste what capital money that comes along on new passenger cars. Good enough is not _best_ you could get for the price. QUOTE: Does anyone know if the Capstone program includes rewiring? If it does, those cars are good for another 30 years - with periodic truck overhauls. BTW - I imagine that the inside bearings on amfleet are maintenece nightmares. Suspension - pnuematic suspension is common in the US and has been. That you can add decent computer simulation to the design, reduces testing costs, not quality of final product. Braking - induction rail braking - this is new and very cool, but as you said, not needed for 125mph. Locomotive hauled Amfleet trains already have the 3 other kinds of braking - dynamic, disc and tread, just like TGV, just lower capacity - an all that's needed for 125 mph. HVAC - microprocessor controlled is better - but very cheap to retrofit. Not even a small part of "new is better than rebuild" part. Finite element design vs. pencil and paper - I agree you could shave a bit of weight out, but, again, this is small potatoes for a rail car - unlike a airliner. Braking - I think your analogy w/AC traction is one of improved technology. I'll agree, but this is just another small potatoes arguement. Anti-slide braking, if needed for higher speeds, is still a fairly cheap retrofit. Rebuild almost = new cost. No. A rebuild would not involve any changes to the carbody's basic structure. The cost to form, fabricate and cast the basic carbody, draft system and running gear are a major part of a car's cost. You can rebuild a car in-kind (with some upgrades) for about 1/2 the cost of new. Inboard bearings on Amfleet - are NOT a problem. They are pressed on cartridge roller bearings that are greased and sealed for wheel life and are very reliable and maintenance free (just like frt car bearings). The only problem with them is that wayside HBDs on the frt railroads don't "see" them, so the cars have a trainlined onboard system that has given fits from time to time. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply 12 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » 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 More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Maybe he means better suspension & maybe leaning into curves. I would suspect that the NEC ould easily support trains with 15 minute headways with the signal system now in place. Heck between commuter & A/trak trains I would think even 15 minutes would be a long period. I know that the tunnel between NJ & Penn Station NY can handle a ttrain every 3 minutes. That would mean the signal system is geared for that time frame. [:D][:p] Originally posted by oltmannd Originally posted by uzurpator Originally posted by oltmannd Operationally, it could be done (you'd have to kick NJT out of some Penn Sta slots, tho'), but would the market support it? What headways support the max benefit for the least cost? I have never seen, read or heard anything that would support 15 minute headways. Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, May 2, 2005 12:22 PM Gabe unless Amtrak can dispatch their own trains no matter how much $$$$ is given to them in my opinion the same poor service will continue. It is the RRs who own the ROW mentality that keeps A/trak from performing. In my opinion the RRs consider it a pain in the neck to operate A/trak as it screws up there freights [:o)][8D] Originally posted by gabe Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, May 2, 2005 12:33 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Nice opinions. I disagree. If you just disagree, then your disagreement is worthless. Care to back it up? BTW - how is progress in car technology an opinion? Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, May 2, 2005 12:40 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd What "technology" of Amfleet is obsolete? I would suggest that there really is nothing new since the 70s on the car side. Suspension, electomagnetic brakes, air conditioning, shock absorption, lightweight materials, controlled braking - a few things did improve. besides - amfleet are getting older - soon they will show it with increasing maintenence. You make a case for rebuilding Amfleet, not scrapping it. Suspension - nothing new in the past 50 years. Electromagnetic brakes - huh? The only ones I know of are trolley car track brakes. Is this what you mean? Air conditioning - nothing new, other than controls and refrig. type, in the past 50 years. Shock absorbtion - viscous damping is viscous damping. Friction damping is friction damping. Nothing new here since the 1960s. Lightweight materials - such as? You COULD make a passenger car out of aluminum or composites, but what would be the point? You still have to make 1M lbs buff and materials other than steel have fatigue life issues. Controlled braking - anti-slide braking to reduce stopping distances has been around since the 1940s. The controls for it are better, but the basic technology is the same. Amfleet was built with EP braking, but Amtrak removed it. It wasn't needed, even on 18 cars trains. What about the age of Amfleet will make maintenance increase? If you rebuild in kind, you reset the clock, get "like new" performance, at roughly half the cost of new. You can even "reset" the fatigue life clock on steel castings or weldments by stress relieving them. At roughly 30 years, you have to rewire, which is a pain, but affords an opportunity to update some systems. Amfleet is certainly good enough for 100 -125 mph service. 20+ years in Metroliner service proves that. What Amtrak needs is more places to run 100-125 mph. Lets not waste what capital money that comes along on new passenger cars. Does anyone know if the Capstone program includes rewiring? If it does, those cars are good for another 30 years - with periodic truck overhauls. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, May 2, 2005 1:30 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd You make a case for rebuilding Amfleet, not scrapping it. Suspension - nothing new in the past 50 years. Air suspension, suspension optimised for humans in the way it osccilates, computer controlled etc etc... http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/sr10.html QUOTE: Electromagnetic brakes - huh? The only ones I know of are trolley car track brakes. Is this what you mean? Pretty much - most of european high speed (125 mph+) equipment has them installed - they make quick stop in emrgency. While in trolley cars they were used forsome time, but were recently introduced into psgr stock. [deleted some] Of course there are also magnetic induction brakes, but that is for 140mph+ speeds. Since america will not have such trains in any forseeable future... http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/research.html#brakes QUOTE: Air conditioning - nothing new, other than controls and refrig. type, in the past 50 years. Seesh - there was air conditioning in ancient Egypt. The point is that air conditioning of the 70'ties is different to air conditioning of now. The principle is the same, but applied and controlled differently. QUOTE: Shock absorbtion - viscous damping is viscous damping. Friction damping is friction damping. Nothing new here since the 1960s. I was more concerned about crashworthiness here - you know finite element CAD designed cars and such. Lower weight with higher buff strength etc. QUOTE: Lightweight materials - such as? You COULD make a passenger car out of aluminum or composites, but what would be the point? You still have to make 1M lbs buff and materials other than steel have fatigue life issues. TGV Duplex cars use aluminum side walls - allowing double deck trainset with 17 tonnes axleload. ICE3 uses special seat construction which saves about 2 tons of car weight. The cage of the car - the buff strength part - can be made of steel. The rest is the field to show progress. QUOTE: Controlled braking - anti-slide braking to reduce stopping distances has been around since the 1940s. The controls for it are better, but the basic technology is the same. Amfleet was built with EP braking, but Amtrak removed it. It wasn't needed, even on 18 cars trains. AC traction was avalible in 50ties. It happened to be usable just recently. You see the difference? QUOTE: What about the age of Amfleet will make maintenance increase? If you rebuild in kind, you reset the clock, get "like new" performance, at roughly half the cost of new. You can even "reset" the fatigue life clock on steel castings or weldments by stress relieving them. At roughly 30 years, you have to rewire, which is a pain, but affords an opportunity to update some systems. The general rebuild you propose is just like building a new car. And cost just about the same. You can rewire, change seat configuration, add fancy electronics etc. But once you start to fiddle with the car cage or load bearing elements - you just might build a new car. QUOTE: Amfleet is certainly good enough for 100 -125 mph service. 20+ years in Metroliner service proves that. What Amtrak needs is more places to run 100-125 mph. Lets not waste what capital money that comes along on new passenger cars. Good enough is not _best_ you could get for the price. QUOTE: Does anyone know if the Capstone program includes rewiring? If it does, those cars are good for another 30 years - with periodic truck overhauls. BTW - I imagine that the inside bearings on amfleet are maintenece nightmares. Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Tuesday, May 3, 2005 12:29 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd You make a case for rebuilding Amfleet, not scrapping it. Suspension - nothing new in the past 50 years. Air suspension, suspension optimised for humans in the way it osccilates, computer controlled etc etc... http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/sr10.html QUOTE: Electromagnetic brakes - huh? The only ones I know of are trolley car track brakes. Is this what you mean? Pretty much - most of european high speed (125 mph+) equipment has them installed - they make quick stop in emrgency. While in trolley cars they were used forsome time, but were recently introduced into psgr stock. [deleted some] Of course there are also magnetic induction brakes, but that is for 140mph+ speeds. Since america will not have such trains in any forseeable future... http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/research.html#brakes QUOTE: Air conditioning - nothing new, other than controls and refrig. type, in the past 50 years. Seesh - there was air conditioning in ancient Egypt. The point is that air conditioning of the 70'ties is different to air conditioning of now. The principle is the same, but applied and controlled differently. QUOTE: Shock absorbtion - viscous damping is viscous damping. Friction damping is friction damping. Nothing new here since the 1960s. I was more concerned about crashworthiness here - you know finite element CAD designed cars and such. Lower weight with higher buff strength etc. QUOTE: Lightweight materials - such as? You COULD make a passenger car out of aluminum or composites, but what would be the point? You still have to make 1M lbs buff and materials other than steel have fatigue life issues. TGV Duplex cars use aluminum side walls - allowing double deck trainset with 17 tonnes axleload. ICE3 uses special seat construction which saves about 2 tons of car weight. The cage of the car - the buff strength part - can be made of steel. The rest is the field to show progress. QUOTE: Controlled braking - anti-slide braking to reduce stopping distances has been around since the 1940s. The controls for it are better, but the basic technology is the same. Amfleet was built with EP braking, but Amtrak removed it. It wasn't needed, even on 18 cars trains. AC traction was avalible in 50ties. It happened to be usable just recently. You see the difference? QUOTE: What about the age of Amfleet will make maintenance increase? If you rebuild in kind, you reset the clock, get "like new" performance, at roughly half the cost of new. You can even "reset" the fatigue life clock on steel castings or weldments by stress relieving them. At roughly 30 years, you have to rewire, which is a pain, but affords an opportunity to update some systems. The general rebuild you propose is just like building a new car. And cost just about the same. You can rewire, change seat configuration, add fancy electronics etc. But once you start to fiddle with the car cage or load bearing elements - you just might build a new car. QUOTE: Amfleet is certainly good enough for 100 -125 mph service. 20+ years in Metroliner service proves that. What Amtrak needs is more places to run 100-125 mph. Lets not waste what capital money that comes along on new passenger cars. Good enough is not _best_ you could get for the price. QUOTE: Does anyone know if the Capstone program includes rewiring? If it does, those cars are good for another 30 years - with periodic truck overhauls. BTW - I imagine that the inside bearings on amfleet are maintenece nightmares. Suspension - pnuematic suspension is common in the US and has been. That you can add decent computer simulation to the design, reduces testing costs, not quality of final product. Braking - induction rail braking - this is new and very cool, but as you said, not needed for 125mph. Locomotive hauled Amfleet trains already have the 3 other kinds of braking - dynamic, disc and tread, just like TGV, just lower capacity - an all that's needed for 125 mph. HVAC - microprocessor controlled is better - but very cheap to retrofit. Not even a small part of "new is better than rebuild" part. Finite element design vs. pencil and paper - I agree you could shave a bit of weight out, but, again, this is small potatoes for a rail car - unlike a airliner. Braking - I think your analogy w/AC traction is one of improved technology. I'll agree, but this is just another small potatoes arguement. Anti-slide braking, if needed for higher speeds, is still a fairly cheap retrofit. Rebuild almost = new cost. No. A rebuild would not involve any changes to the carbody's basic structure. The cost to form, fabricate and cast the basic carbody, draft system and running gear are a major part of a car's cost. You can rebuild a car in-kind (with some upgrades) for about 1/2 the cost of new. Inboard bearings on Amfleet - are NOT a problem. They are pressed on cartridge roller bearings that are greased and sealed for wheel life and are very reliable and maintenance free (just like frt car bearings). The only problem with them is that wayside HBDs on the frt railroads don't "see" them, so the cars have a trainlined onboard system that has given fits from time to time. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply 12 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » 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 More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Maybe he means better suspension & maybe leaning into curves. I would suspect that the NEC ould easily support trains with 15 minute headways with the signal system now in place. Heck between commuter & A/trak trains I would think even 15 minutes would be a long period. I know that the tunnel between NJ & Penn Station NY can handle a ttrain every 3 minutes. That would mean the signal system is geared for that time frame. [:D][:p] Originally posted by oltmannd Originally posted by uzurpator Originally posted by oltmannd Operationally, it could be done (you'd have to kick NJT out of some Penn Sta slots, tho'), but would the market support it? What headways support the max benefit for the least cost? I have never seen, read or heard anything that would support 15 minute headways. Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, May 2, 2005 12:22 PM Gabe unless Amtrak can dispatch their own trains no matter how much $$$$ is given to them in my opinion the same poor service will continue. It is the RRs who own the ROW mentality that keeps A/trak from performing. In my opinion the RRs consider it a pain in the neck to operate A/trak as it screws up there freights [:o)][8D] Originally posted by gabe Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, May 2, 2005 12:33 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Nice opinions. I disagree. If you just disagree, then your disagreement is worthless. Care to back it up? BTW - how is progress in car technology an opinion? Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, May 2, 2005 12:40 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd What "technology" of Amfleet is obsolete? I would suggest that there really is nothing new since the 70s on the car side. Suspension, electomagnetic brakes, air conditioning, shock absorption, lightweight materials, controlled braking - a few things did improve. besides - amfleet are getting older - soon they will show it with increasing maintenence. You make a case for rebuilding Amfleet, not scrapping it. Suspension - nothing new in the past 50 years. Electromagnetic brakes - huh? The only ones I know of are trolley car track brakes. Is this what you mean? Air conditioning - nothing new, other than controls and refrig. type, in the past 50 years. Shock absorbtion - viscous damping is viscous damping. Friction damping is friction damping. Nothing new here since the 1960s. Lightweight materials - such as? You COULD make a passenger car out of aluminum or composites, but what would be the point? You still have to make 1M lbs buff and materials other than steel have fatigue life issues. Controlled braking - anti-slide braking to reduce stopping distances has been around since the 1940s. The controls for it are better, but the basic technology is the same. Amfleet was built with EP braking, but Amtrak removed it. It wasn't needed, even on 18 cars trains. What about the age of Amfleet will make maintenance increase? If you rebuild in kind, you reset the clock, get "like new" performance, at roughly half the cost of new. You can even "reset" the fatigue life clock on steel castings or weldments by stress relieving them. At roughly 30 years, you have to rewire, which is a pain, but affords an opportunity to update some systems. Amfleet is certainly good enough for 100 -125 mph service. 20+ years in Metroliner service proves that. What Amtrak needs is more places to run 100-125 mph. Lets not waste what capital money that comes along on new passenger cars. Does anyone know if the Capstone program includes rewiring? If it does, those cars are good for another 30 years - with periodic truck overhauls. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, May 2, 2005 1:30 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd You make a case for rebuilding Amfleet, not scrapping it. Suspension - nothing new in the past 50 years. Air suspension, suspension optimised for humans in the way it osccilates, computer controlled etc etc... http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/sr10.html QUOTE: Electromagnetic brakes - huh? The only ones I know of are trolley car track brakes. Is this what you mean? Pretty much - most of european high speed (125 mph+) equipment has them installed - they make quick stop in emrgency. While in trolley cars they were used forsome time, but were recently introduced into psgr stock. [deleted some] Of course there are also magnetic induction brakes, but that is for 140mph+ speeds. Since america will not have such trains in any forseeable future... http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/research.html#brakes QUOTE: Air conditioning - nothing new, other than controls and refrig. type, in the past 50 years. Seesh - there was air conditioning in ancient Egypt. The point is that air conditioning of the 70'ties is different to air conditioning of now. The principle is the same, but applied and controlled differently. QUOTE: Shock absorbtion - viscous damping is viscous damping. Friction damping is friction damping. Nothing new here since the 1960s. I was more concerned about crashworthiness here - you know finite element CAD designed cars and such. Lower weight with higher buff strength etc. QUOTE: Lightweight materials - such as? You COULD make a passenger car out of aluminum or composites, but what would be the point? You still have to make 1M lbs buff and materials other than steel have fatigue life issues. TGV Duplex cars use aluminum side walls - allowing double deck trainset with 17 tonnes axleload. ICE3 uses special seat construction which saves about 2 tons of car weight. The cage of the car - the buff strength part - can be made of steel. The rest is the field to show progress. QUOTE: Controlled braking - anti-slide braking to reduce stopping distances has been around since the 1940s. The controls for it are better, but the basic technology is the same. Amfleet was built with EP braking, but Amtrak removed it. It wasn't needed, even on 18 cars trains. AC traction was avalible in 50ties. It happened to be usable just recently. You see the difference? QUOTE: What about the age of Amfleet will make maintenance increase? If you rebuild in kind, you reset the clock, get "like new" performance, at roughly half the cost of new. You can even "reset" the fatigue life clock on steel castings or weldments by stress relieving them. At roughly 30 years, you have to rewire, which is a pain, but affords an opportunity to update some systems. The general rebuild you propose is just like building a new car. And cost just about the same. You can rewire, change seat configuration, add fancy electronics etc. But once you start to fiddle with the car cage or load bearing elements - you just might build a new car. QUOTE: Amfleet is certainly good enough for 100 -125 mph service. 20+ years in Metroliner service proves that. What Amtrak needs is more places to run 100-125 mph. Lets not waste what capital money that comes along on new passenger cars. Good enough is not _best_ you could get for the price. QUOTE: Does anyone know if the Capstone program includes rewiring? If it does, those cars are good for another 30 years - with periodic truck overhauls. BTW - I imagine that the inside bearings on amfleet are maintenece nightmares. Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Tuesday, May 3, 2005 12:29 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd You make a case for rebuilding Amfleet, not scrapping it. Suspension - nothing new in the past 50 years. Air suspension, suspension optimised for humans in the way it osccilates, computer controlled etc etc... http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/sr10.html QUOTE: Electromagnetic brakes - huh? The only ones I know of are trolley car track brakes. Is this what you mean? Pretty much - most of european high speed (125 mph+) equipment has them installed - they make quick stop in emrgency. While in trolley cars they were used forsome time, but were recently introduced into psgr stock. [deleted some] Of course there are also magnetic induction brakes, but that is for 140mph+ speeds. Since america will not have such trains in any forseeable future... http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/research.html#brakes QUOTE: Air conditioning - nothing new, other than controls and refrig. type, in the past 50 years. Seesh - there was air conditioning in ancient Egypt. The point is that air conditioning of the 70'ties is different to air conditioning of now. The principle is the same, but applied and controlled differently. QUOTE: Shock absorbtion - viscous damping is viscous damping. Friction damping is friction damping. Nothing new here since the 1960s. I was more concerned about crashworthiness here - you know finite element CAD designed cars and such. Lower weight with higher buff strength etc. QUOTE: Lightweight materials - such as? You COULD make a passenger car out of aluminum or composites, but what would be the point? You still have to make 1M lbs buff and materials other than steel have fatigue life issues. TGV Duplex cars use aluminum side walls - allowing double deck trainset with 17 tonnes axleload. ICE3 uses special seat construction which saves about 2 tons of car weight. The cage of the car - the buff strength part - can be made of steel. The rest is the field to show progress. QUOTE: Controlled braking - anti-slide braking to reduce stopping distances has been around since the 1940s. The controls for it are better, but the basic technology is the same. Amfleet was built with EP braking, but Amtrak removed it. It wasn't needed, even on 18 cars trains. AC traction was avalible in 50ties. It happened to be usable just recently. You see the difference? QUOTE: What about the age of Amfleet will make maintenance increase? If you rebuild in kind, you reset the clock, get "like new" performance, at roughly half the cost of new. You can even "reset" the fatigue life clock on steel castings or weldments by stress relieving them. At roughly 30 years, you have to rewire, which is a pain, but affords an opportunity to update some systems. The general rebuild you propose is just like building a new car. And cost just about the same. You can rewire, change seat configuration, add fancy electronics etc. But once you start to fiddle with the car cage or load bearing elements - you just might build a new car. QUOTE: Amfleet is certainly good enough for 100 -125 mph service. 20+ years in Metroliner service proves that. What Amtrak needs is more places to run 100-125 mph. Lets not waste what capital money that comes along on new passenger cars. Good enough is not _best_ you could get for the price. QUOTE: Does anyone know if the Capstone program includes rewiring? If it does, those cars are good for another 30 years - with periodic truck overhauls. BTW - I imagine that the inside bearings on amfleet are maintenece nightmares. Suspension - pnuematic suspension is common in the US and has been. That you can add decent computer simulation to the design, reduces testing costs, not quality of final product. Braking - induction rail braking - this is new and very cool, but as you said, not needed for 125mph. Locomotive hauled Amfleet trains already have the 3 other kinds of braking - dynamic, disc and tread, just like TGV, just lower capacity - an all that's needed for 125 mph. HVAC - microprocessor controlled is better - but very cheap to retrofit. Not even a small part of "new is better than rebuild" part. Finite element design vs. pencil and paper - I agree you could shave a bit of weight out, but, again, this is small potatoes for a rail car - unlike a airliner. Braking - I think your analogy w/AC traction is one of improved technology. I'll agree, but this is just another small potatoes arguement. Anti-slide braking, if needed for higher speeds, is still a fairly cheap retrofit. Rebuild almost = new cost. No. A rebuild would not involve any changes to the carbody's basic structure. The cost to form, fabricate and cast the basic carbody, draft system and running gear are a major part of a car's cost. You can rebuild a car in-kind (with some upgrades) for about 1/2 the cost of new. Inboard bearings on Amfleet - are NOT a problem. They are pressed on cartridge roller bearings that are greased and sealed for wheel life and are very reliable and maintenance free (just like frt car bearings). The only problem with them is that wayside HBDs on the frt railroads don't "see" them, so the cars have a trainlined onboard system that has given fits from time to time. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply 12 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » 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 More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Originally posted by oltmannd Originally posted by uzurpator Originally posted by oltmannd Operationally, it could be done (you'd have to kick NJT out of some Penn Sta slots, tho'), but would the market support it? What headways support the max benefit for the least cost? I have never seen, read or heard anything that would support 15 minute headways. Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, May 2, 2005 12:22 PM Gabe unless Amtrak can dispatch their own trains no matter how much $$$$ is given to them in my opinion the same poor service will continue. It is the RRs who own the ROW mentality that keeps A/trak from performing. In my opinion the RRs consider it a pain in the neck to operate A/trak as it screws up there freights [:o)][8D] Originally posted by gabe Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, May 2, 2005 12:33 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Nice opinions. I disagree. If you just disagree, then your disagreement is worthless. Care to back it up? BTW - how is progress in car technology an opinion? Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, May 2, 2005 12:40 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd What "technology" of Amfleet is obsolete? I would suggest that there really is nothing new since the 70s on the car side. Suspension, electomagnetic brakes, air conditioning, shock absorption, lightweight materials, controlled braking - a few things did improve. besides - amfleet are getting older - soon they will show it with increasing maintenence. You make a case for rebuilding Amfleet, not scrapping it. Suspension - nothing new in the past 50 years. Electromagnetic brakes - huh? The only ones I know of are trolley car track brakes. Is this what you mean? Air conditioning - nothing new, other than controls and refrig. type, in the past 50 years. Shock absorbtion - viscous damping is viscous damping. Friction damping is friction damping. Nothing new here since the 1960s. Lightweight materials - such as? You COULD make a passenger car out of aluminum or composites, but what would be the point? You still have to make 1M lbs buff and materials other than steel have fatigue life issues. Controlled braking - anti-slide braking to reduce stopping distances has been around since the 1940s. The controls for it are better, but the basic technology is the same. Amfleet was built with EP braking, but Amtrak removed it. It wasn't needed, even on 18 cars trains. What about the age of Amfleet will make maintenance increase? If you rebuild in kind, you reset the clock, get "like new" performance, at roughly half the cost of new. You can even "reset" the fatigue life clock on steel castings or weldments by stress relieving them. At roughly 30 years, you have to rewire, which is a pain, but affords an opportunity to update some systems. Amfleet is certainly good enough for 100 -125 mph service. 20+ years in Metroliner service proves that. What Amtrak needs is more places to run 100-125 mph. Lets not waste what capital money that comes along on new passenger cars. Does anyone know if the Capstone program includes rewiring? If it does, those cars are good for another 30 years - with periodic truck overhauls. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, May 2, 2005 1:30 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd You make a case for rebuilding Amfleet, not scrapping it. Suspension - nothing new in the past 50 years. Air suspension, suspension optimised for humans in the way it osccilates, computer controlled etc etc... http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/sr10.html QUOTE: Electromagnetic brakes - huh? The only ones I know of are trolley car track brakes. Is this what you mean? Pretty much - most of european high speed (125 mph+) equipment has them installed - they make quick stop in emrgency. While in trolley cars they were used forsome time, but were recently introduced into psgr stock. [deleted some] Of course there are also magnetic induction brakes, but that is for 140mph+ speeds. Since america will not have such trains in any forseeable future... http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/research.html#brakes QUOTE: Air conditioning - nothing new, other than controls and refrig. type, in the past 50 years. Seesh - there was air conditioning in ancient Egypt. The point is that air conditioning of the 70'ties is different to air conditioning of now. The principle is the same, but applied and controlled differently. QUOTE: Shock absorbtion - viscous damping is viscous damping. Friction damping is friction damping. Nothing new here since the 1960s. I was more concerned about crashworthiness here - you know finite element CAD designed cars and such. Lower weight with higher buff strength etc. QUOTE: Lightweight materials - such as? You COULD make a passenger car out of aluminum or composites, but what would be the point? You still have to make 1M lbs buff and materials other than steel have fatigue life issues. TGV Duplex cars use aluminum side walls - allowing double deck trainset with 17 tonnes axleload. ICE3 uses special seat construction which saves about 2 tons of car weight. The cage of the car - the buff strength part - can be made of steel. The rest is the field to show progress. QUOTE: Controlled braking - anti-slide braking to reduce stopping distances has been around since the 1940s. The controls for it are better, but the basic technology is the same. Amfleet was built with EP braking, but Amtrak removed it. It wasn't needed, even on 18 cars trains. AC traction was avalible in 50ties. It happened to be usable just recently. You see the difference? QUOTE: What about the age of Amfleet will make maintenance increase? If you rebuild in kind, you reset the clock, get "like new" performance, at roughly half the cost of new. You can even "reset" the fatigue life clock on steel castings or weldments by stress relieving them. At roughly 30 years, you have to rewire, which is a pain, but affords an opportunity to update some systems. The general rebuild you propose is just like building a new car. And cost just about the same. You can rewire, change seat configuration, add fancy electronics etc. But once you start to fiddle with the car cage or load bearing elements - you just might build a new car. QUOTE: Amfleet is certainly good enough for 100 -125 mph service. 20+ years in Metroliner service proves that. What Amtrak needs is more places to run 100-125 mph. Lets not waste what capital money that comes along on new passenger cars. Good enough is not _best_ you could get for the price. QUOTE: Does anyone know if the Capstone program includes rewiring? If it does, those cars are good for another 30 years - with periodic truck overhauls. BTW - I imagine that the inside bearings on amfleet are maintenece nightmares. Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Tuesday, May 3, 2005 12:29 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd You make a case for rebuilding Amfleet, not scrapping it. Suspension - nothing new in the past 50 years. Air suspension, suspension optimised for humans in the way it osccilates, computer controlled etc etc... http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/sr10.html QUOTE: Electromagnetic brakes - huh? The only ones I know of are trolley car track brakes. Is this what you mean? Pretty much - most of european high speed (125 mph+) equipment has them installed - they make quick stop in emrgency. While in trolley cars they were used forsome time, but were recently introduced into psgr stock. [deleted some] Of course there are also magnetic induction brakes, but that is for 140mph+ speeds. Since america will not have such trains in any forseeable future... http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/research.html#brakes QUOTE: Air conditioning - nothing new, other than controls and refrig. type, in the past 50 years. Seesh - there was air conditioning in ancient Egypt. The point is that air conditioning of the 70'ties is different to air conditioning of now. The principle is the same, but applied and controlled differently. QUOTE: Shock absorbtion - viscous damping is viscous damping. Friction damping is friction damping. Nothing new here since the 1960s. I was more concerned about crashworthiness here - you know finite element CAD designed cars and such. Lower weight with higher buff strength etc. QUOTE: Lightweight materials - such as? You COULD make a passenger car out of aluminum or composites, but what would be the point? You still have to make 1M lbs buff and materials other than steel have fatigue life issues. TGV Duplex cars use aluminum side walls - allowing double deck trainset with 17 tonnes axleload. ICE3 uses special seat construction which saves about 2 tons of car weight. The cage of the car - the buff strength part - can be made of steel. The rest is the field to show progress. QUOTE: Controlled braking - anti-slide braking to reduce stopping distances has been around since the 1940s. The controls for it are better, but the basic technology is the same. Amfleet was built with EP braking, but Amtrak removed it. It wasn't needed, even on 18 cars trains. AC traction was avalible in 50ties. It happened to be usable just recently. You see the difference? QUOTE: What about the age of Amfleet will make maintenance increase? If you rebuild in kind, you reset the clock, get "like new" performance, at roughly half the cost of new. You can even "reset" the fatigue life clock on steel castings or weldments by stress relieving them. At roughly 30 years, you have to rewire, which is a pain, but affords an opportunity to update some systems. The general rebuild you propose is just like building a new car. And cost just about the same. You can rewire, change seat configuration, add fancy electronics etc. But once you start to fiddle with the car cage or load bearing elements - you just might build a new car. QUOTE: Amfleet is certainly good enough for 100 -125 mph service. 20+ years in Metroliner service proves that. What Amtrak needs is more places to run 100-125 mph. Lets not waste what capital money that comes along on new passenger cars. Good enough is not _best_ you could get for the price. QUOTE: Does anyone know if the Capstone program includes rewiring? If it does, those cars are good for another 30 years - with periodic truck overhauls. BTW - I imagine that the inside bearings on amfleet are maintenece nightmares. Suspension - pnuematic suspension is common in the US and has been. That you can add decent computer simulation to the design, reduces testing costs, not quality of final product. Braking - induction rail braking - this is new and very cool, but as you said, not needed for 125mph. Locomotive hauled Amfleet trains already have the 3 other kinds of braking - dynamic, disc and tread, just like TGV, just lower capacity - an all that's needed for 125 mph. HVAC - microprocessor controlled is better - but very cheap to retrofit. Not even a small part of "new is better than rebuild" part. Finite element design vs. pencil and paper - I agree you could shave a bit of weight out, but, again, this is small potatoes for a rail car - unlike a airliner. Braking - I think your analogy w/AC traction is one of improved technology. I'll agree, but this is just another small potatoes arguement. Anti-slide braking, if needed for higher speeds, is still a fairly cheap retrofit. Rebuild almost = new cost. No. A rebuild would not involve any changes to the carbody's basic structure. The cost to form, fabricate and cast the basic carbody, draft system and running gear are a major part of a car's cost. You can rebuild a car in-kind (with some upgrades) for about 1/2 the cost of new. Inboard bearings on Amfleet - are NOT a problem. They are pressed on cartridge roller bearings that are greased and sealed for wheel life and are very reliable and maintenance free (just like frt car bearings). The only problem with them is that wayside HBDs on the frt railroads don't "see" them, so the cars have a trainlined onboard system that has given fits from time to time. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply 12 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » 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 More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Originally posted by uzurpator Originally posted by oltmannd Operationally, it could be done (you'd have to kick NJT out of some Penn Sta slots, tho'), but would the market support it? What headways support the max benefit for the least cost? I have never seen, read or heard anything that would support 15 minute headways.
Originally posted by gabe Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, May 2, 2005 12:33 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Nice opinions. I disagree.
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd
QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd What "technology" of Amfleet is obsolete? I would suggest that there really is nothing new since the 70s on the car side. Suspension, electomagnetic brakes, air conditioning, shock absorption, lightweight materials, controlled braking - a few things did improve. besides - amfleet are getting older - soon they will show it with increasing maintenence.
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd You make a case for rebuilding Amfleet, not scrapping it. Suspension - nothing new in the past 50 years.
QUOTE: Electromagnetic brakes - huh? The only ones I know of are trolley car track brakes. Is this what you mean?
QUOTE: Air conditioning - nothing new, other than controls and refrig. type, in the past 50 years.
QUOTE: Shock absorbtion - viscous damping is viscous damping. Friction damping is friction damping. Nothing new here since the 1960s.
QUOTE: Lightweight materials - such as? You COULD make a passenger car out of aluminum or composites, but what would be the point? You still have to make 1M lbs buff and materials other than steel have fatigue life issues.
QUOTE: Controlled braking - anti-slide braking to reduce stopping distances has been around since the 1940s. The controls for it are better, but the basic technology is the same. Amfleet was built with EP braking, but Amtrak removed it. It wasn't needed, even on 18 cars trains.
QUOTE: What about the age of Amfleet will make maintenance increase? If you rebuild in kind, you reset the clock, get "like new" performance, at roughly half the cost of new. You can even "reset" the fatigue life clock on steel castings or weldments by stress relieving them. At roughly 30 years, you have to rewire, which is a pain, but affords an opportunity to update some systems.
QUOTE: Amfleet is certainly good enough for 100 -125 mph service. 20+ years in Metroliner service proves that. What Amtrak needs is more places to run 100-125 mph. Lets not waste what capital money that comes along on new passenger cars.
QUOTE: Does anyone know if the Capstone program includes rewiring? If it does, those cars are good for another 30 years - with periodic truck overhauls.
QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd You make a case for rebuilding Amfleet, not scrapping it. Suspension - nothing new in the past 50 years. Air suspension, suspension optimised for humans in the way it osccilates, computer controlled etc etc... http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/sr10.html QUOTE: Electromagnetic brakes - huh? The only ones I know of are trolley car track brakes. Is this what you mean? Pretty much - most of european high speed (125 mph+) equipment has them installed - they make quick stop in emrgency. While in trolley cars they were used forsome time, but were recently introduced into psgr stock. [deleted some] Of course there are also magnetic induction brakes, but that is for 140mph+ speeds. Since america will not have such trains in any forseeable future... http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/research.html#brakes QUOTE: Air conditioning - nothing new, other than controls and refrig. type, in the past 50 years. Seesh - there was air conditioning in ancient Egypt. The point is that air conditioning of the 70'ties is different to air conditioning of now. The principle is the same, but applied and controlled differently. QUOTE: Shock absorbtion - viscous damping is viscous damping. Friction damping is friction damping. Nothing new here since the 1960s. I was more concerned about crashworthiness here - you know finite element CAD designed cars and such. Lower weight with higher buff strength etc. QUOTE: Lightweight materials - such as? You COULD make a passenger car out of aluminum or composites, but what would be the point? You still have to make 1M lbs buff and materials other than steel have fatigue life issues. TGV Duplex cars use aluminum side walls - allowing double deck trainset with 17 tonnes axleload. ICE3 uses special seat construction which saves about 2 tons of car weight. The cage of the car - the buff strength part - can be made of steel. The rest is the field to show progress. QUOTE: Controlled braking - anti-slide braking to reduce stopping distances has been around since the 1940s. The controls for it are better, but the basic technology is the same. Amfleet was built with EP braking, but Amtrak removed it. It wasn't needed, even on 18 cars trains. AC traction was avalible in 50ties. It happened to be usable just recently. You see the difference? QUOTE: What about the age of Amfleet will make maintenance increase? If you rebuild in kind, you reset the clock, get "like new" performance, at roughly half the cost of new. You can even "reset" the fatigue life clock on steel castings or weldments by stress relieving them. At roughly 30 years, you have to rewire, which is a pain, but affords an opportunity to update some systems. The general rebuild you propose is just like building a new car. And cost just about the same. You can rewire, change seat configuration, add fancy electronics etc. But once you start to fiddle with the car cage or load bearing elements - you just might build a new car. QUOTE: Amfleet is certainly good enough for 100 -125 mph service. 20+ years in Metroliner service proves that. What Amtrak needs is more places to run 100-125 mph. Lets not waste what capital money that comes along on new passenger cars. Good enough is not _best_ you could get for the price. QUOTE: Does anyone know if the Capstone program includes rewiring? If it does, those cars are good for another 30 years - with periodic truck overhauls. BTW - I imagine that the inside bearings on amfleet are maintenece nightmares.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.