i recently read the latest issue of trains ... how to fix amtrak.... i have also just read a british magazine that featured an article about the VIRGIN 220 D M U sets these units are powered with a motor under each coach they run at 125 mph and have a range of 1350 miles could these trains some how be used to run medium haul ( 1000 miles to 1200 miles ) at a higher speed than the present amtrak trains run at.... use them in a hub and spoke style of operation just like the commuter airlines do
Not a bad idea - but subject to many of the same issues current Amtrak trains face.
- Conflicts with freight traffic
- Subject to the speed capacity of the track (the line closest to me is only 40mph)
- Inflexible, unless they're capable of towing a trailer.
- Competition from air and highway
That said, it certainly deserves consideration, even for some current Amtrak services.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Would the line(s) have to be electrified?
The Virgin DMU vehicles are not FRA compliant -- they do not meet U.S. safety standards for carbody strength. They would have to be 100% re-engineered, and that would take a lot of money. It's the Acela problem all over again, was anyone paying attention to that fiasco?
Most railway passenger vehicles in Europe do not meet U.S. safety standards. This does not mean that European railways are unsafe, in fact they are equivalent to U.S. railways when it comes to the risk of injury to passengers: both are extremely low. But European railways and U.S. railways acquire this similar level of safety through entirely different pathways, and one cannot just mix and match equipment and methods however one wants, and still reach the same safety result. To stick a Virgin DMU vehicle into a U.S. environment would be like taking a zebra and putting it into a herd of Angus cattle in Nebraska and expecting it to thrive just like the cow, or taking the Angus cow and putting it into the African savannah and expecting it to thrive.
The market conditions in the U.S. for a passenger-car builder are extremely poor. Amtrak and several commuter agencies spoke at a talk earlier this week precisely to that point, and confirmed that point. The market is too small, too fragmented, and too feast-or-famine in terms of orders to make it viable.
RWM
Yes good idea but, like mentioned above, the FRA is too restrictive to use similar DMU's. FRA demands them to be too heavy for economic use. There has been some severe hi-speed accidents in Britain where modern types of DME/EME have coped well, older types not so well. But I think the FRA is concerned about a collision with a heavy freight train.
The RDC, aka Budd car was a DMU.
I would not think flexability would be an issue as I find Amtrak not very flexable in the first place.
That might be a good idea. But you must think Amtrak can't afford to upgrade it's current equipment, let alone buy new. However if Mr. Obama and Biden decide to restructuer Amtrak Then I think we could realalisticly look at the possability of using some of these D M U sets in regular service. Also like Larry said will the current rails hold up to 125mph. trains? Just some things to think about.
The road to to success is always under construction. _____________________________________________________________________________ When the going gets tough, the tough use duct tape.
.....I believe the very important bit of info in the last several posts is: Amtrak equipment must meet specs. to survive accidents involving much heavier frieght equipment.
Quentin
All they have to do is get out the old budd plans and update the RDC to be handicap accesible. problem solved. to get anything done in the U.S. unfortunatly take years of study, millions of dollars in "research" and alot of debating.
I don't think the Budd RDC could even come close to passing the current FRA specs for new equipment.
First line of defense between the Budd and anything hit was the engineer's knees... that is why we had the Roger Willimas version of the budd car. (or if you were with the CNJ, the Budd Cah)
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
You heard it here first, people! Zebras are coming to Nebraska!
Before you start putting hi-speed trains or any type of "new" Amtrak trains out there, shouldn't you start with the standard basement or footings - ie. trackage and crossings? (This is saying that there is even enough $$$ to start messing in this closet)
Sounds to me like it would be putting a high performance race car on a crowded city street. Let's put our horse behind the cart before we start building the new, hi-speed Amtrak.
She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw
MookieYou heard it here first, people! Zebras are coming to Nebraska! Before you start putting hi-speed trains or any type of "new" Amtrak trains out there, shouldn't you start with the standard basement or footings - ie. trackage and crossings? (This is saying that there is even enough $$$ to start messing in this closet) Sounds to me like it would be putting a high performance race car on a crowded city street. Let's put our horse behind the cart before we start building the new, hi-speed Amtrak.
Cliche overload! You did want the horse ahead of the cart, right?
Somewhere someone is hearing hoofbeats and looking for zebras instead of horses.
peterjenkinson1956These units are powered with a motor under each coach. They run at 125 mph and have a range of 1350 miles. Could these trains some how be used to run medium haul (1000 miles to 1200 miles) at a higher speed than the present Amtrak trains run at?*Spelling and grammar fixed*
These units are powered with a motor under each coach. They run at 125 mph and have a range of 1350 miles. Could these trains some how be used to run medium haul (1000 miles to 1200 miles) at a higher speed than the present Amtrak trains run at?
*Spelling and grammar fixed*
The current Amtrak P42s, Amfleet cars, and Viewliners used in the eastern US are capable of doing 90 (and routinely do). The Superliners can go at least 70 (possibly higher) and the Cascades Talgos can probably go 100 or more.
It's the track that restricts their speed...
And none of the European DMUs/EMUs would meet the current FRA standards. They wouldn't stand up to a collision with a regular American train. Just look at what happened to the (FRA certified but still relatively light) Metrolink F59 in the Chatsworth, CA, wreck - the UP SD70s just ripped it apart. Think of the consequenses if it had hit a light DMU instead of an EMD F59! In Europe, there's few freight trains to hit - mostly other light DMU/EMUs or lighter locomotive-hauled trains. Plus, the European rail system is a lot safer; equipped with ATC and other methods to prevent wrecks.
That brings up another question: Once all the rail lines with passenger trains in the US are equipped with ATC (I forget when the deadline is, but it's just a few years), do you think the FRA would be more willing to allow more lighter trains like the Cascades Talgos and the Acela?
The issue of Amtrak goes way beyond the "fix" in the expansion or improvement of supporting of infrastructure and beyond more efficient equipment. Amtrak as an extension of government was created as a piece of legislation to halt the abandonment of certain rail services as much as Conrail was.
The embiblical cord of a federal passenger railroad system is antithetical politically to a significant, if not overwhelming majority of the political, capitalist population. It's advantages are spoken of as "taking cars off the roads" which certainly warms the hearts of Detroit automakers. It would have been as if the rapid fall of the interurban industry had spawned a federal entity called Intertrak or in our own time, saved Detroit by supplanting Detroit, and manufactured cars.
In psychology this situation that has gone on for decades is called a "double bind."You have choice A or choice B and neither works.You need to cut the cord psychologically.
Have the railroads operate the service and supplement the deficit as the Highway Trust Fund supports "automakers.". Period, end of sentence.
Yes, its a shell game, but so is the present arrangement as well. A spoonful of sugar helps the castor oil go down. In a capitalist economy the mixed metaphor of Amtrak is a round peg in a square hole.
Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense: no one thinks he needs more of it than he already has.
TrainManTyThe current Amtrak P42s, Amfleet cars, and Viewliners used in the eastern US are capable of doing 90 (and routinely do). The Superliners can go at least 70 (possibly higher) and the Cascades Talgos can probably go 100 or more. It's the track that restricts their speed...
I would like to see statistics documenting that the European rail system "is a lot safer."
The FRA has no prohibitions on use of Cascades Talgo trainsets or Acela because they are light; they could be used anywhere in the U.S. right now. They are fully compliant vehicles and while they might be lighter in total weight than a conventional Amfleet trainset, they are not less-strong.
Perhaps you're confusing this with non-compliant vehicles such as the European-built DMUs and light-rail vehicles, which can only use trackage shared with freight trains and compliant passenger trainsets, at present, if they are "temporally separated," that is, the freight trains use the line during one part of the day and the passenger trains another, and one cannot enter the system if the other is still on the system. Usually the freight trains run at night and the passenger vehicles during the day.
To your question, first, there is no prohibition on using Acela or Cascades type trainsets anywhere else in the U.S. now. I think the question you are really asking is, "When PTC is installed, will the FRA permit the use of non-compliant vehicles without the requirement for temporal separation? The answer is, who knows? A lot of people are hopeful it will, but the FRA has not said one way or the other, and no one has yet applied to the FRA to do so.
The second part of your question wonders if the FRA will permit higher train speeds than 79 mph on lines that are equipped with PTC. In theory, yes, but again, no one has yet applied, the rules have not yet been written, and no one is quite sure how it will work out. But even if the FRA agreed, it would be a ruling of little practical value on almost all lines in the U.S. other than the NEC, because on almost all lines that passenger trains now run on, or want to run on, the track capacity is not in place to enable passenger trains to run at 90 mph or better while the freight trains continue to run at 45 to 50 mph. A passenger agency that wants to run at 90 mph on a line shared with freight trains is going to have to spend a great deal of money to build additional track, crossovers, train-control systems, etc., to get itself some running room to maintain that kind of speed. And, as almost any passenger agency will tell you, the only time those kinds of top-end speeds gain anything of value is when there are very few or no station stops, and very long runs. For a corridor service, it's rarely going to save more than a handful of minutes, but it will cost billions of dollars to accomplish. Not a very good return on investment.
wallyworld The issue of Amtrak goes way beyond the "fix" in the expansion or improvement of supporting of infrastructure and beyond more efficent equipment. Amtrak as an extension of goverment was created as a piece of legislation to halt the abandonment of certain rail services as much as Conrail was. The embiblical cord of a federal passenger railroad system is antithetical politically to a significant, if not overwhelming majority of the political, capitalist population. It's advantages are spoken of as "taking cars off the roads" which certainly warms the hearts of Detroit automakers. It would have been as if the rapid fall of the interurban industry had spawned a federal entity called Intertrak or supplanted Detroit, and manufactured cars. In psychology this situation that has gone on for decades is called a "double bind."You have choice A or choice B and neither works.You need to cut the cord psychologically. Have the railroads operate the service and suuplement the deficit as the Highway Trust Fund supports "automakers.". Period, end of sentence.Yes, its a shell game, but so is the present arrangement as well. A spoonful of sugar helps the castor oil go down.
The issue of Amtrak goes way beyond the "fix" in the expansion or improvement of supporting of infrastructure and beyond more efficent equipment. Amtrak as an extension of goverment was created as a piece of legislation to halt the abandonment of certain rail services as much as Conrail was.
The embiblical cord of a federal passenger railroad system is antithetical politically to a significant, if not overwhelming majority of the political, capitalist population. It's advantages are spoken of as "taking cars off the roads" which certainly warms the hearts of Detroit automakers. It would have been as if the rapid fall of the interurban industry had spawned a federal entity called Intertrak or supplanted Detroit, and manufactured cars.
Have the railroads operate the service and suuplement the deficit as the Highway Trust Fund supports "automakers.". Period, end of sentence.
Yes, its a shell game, but so is the present arrangement as well. A spoonful of sugar helps the castor oil go down.
If liability was severed, there might be some interest.
Duh! Got so excited that I got to post in the real world, forgot to proof.
And I was excited about the zebras!
Railway Man Mookie You heard it here first, people! Zebras are coming to Nebraska! Before you start putting hi-speed trains or any type of "new" Amtrak trains out there, shouldn't you start with the standard basement or footings - ie. trackage and crossings? (This is saying that there is even enough $$$ to start messing in this closet) Sounds to me like it would be putting a high performance race car on a crowded city street. Let's put our horse behind the cart before we start building the new, hi-speed Amtrak. Cliche overload! You did want the horse ahead of the cart, right? Somewhere someone is hearing hoofbeats and looking for zebras instead of horses. RWM
Mookie You heard it here first, people! Zebras are coming to Nebraska! Before you start putting hi-speed trains or any type of "new" Amtrak trains out there, shouldn't you start with the standard basement or footings - ie. trackage and crossings? (This is saying that there is even enough $$$ to start messing in this closet) Sounds to me like it would be putting a high performance race car on a crowded city street. Let's put our horse behind the cart before we start building the new, hi-speed Amtrak.
Railway Manwallyworld The issue of Amtrak goes way beyond the "fix" in the expansion or improvement of supporting of infrastructure and beyond more efficent equipment. Amtrak as an extension of goverment was created as a piece of legislation to halt the abandonment of certain rail services as much as Conrail was. The embiblical cord of a federal passenger railroad system is antithetical politically to a significant, if not overwhelming majority of the political, capitalist population. It's advantages are spoken of as "taking cars off the roads" which certainly warms the hearts of Detroit automakers. It would have been as if the rapid fall of the interurban industry had spawned a federal entity called Intertrak or supplanted Detroit, and manufactured cars. In psychology this situation that has gone on for decades is called a "double bind."You have choice A or choice B and neither works.You need to cut the cord psychologically. Have the railroads operate the service and suuplement the deficit as the Highway Trust Fund supports "automakers.". Period, end of sentence.Yes, its a shell game, but so is the present arrangement as well. A spoonful of sugar helps the castor oil go down. If liability was severed, there might be some interest.RWM
I agree. That would be a critical assumption for this concept to work.Government, in of itself, uses this "loop hole" very effectively
"I would like to see statistics documenting that the European rail system "is a lot safer.""
I thought international comparison stats would be easy to find, but can't find any. However, if you compare fatalities per passenger mile the US comes off significantly worse than Britain, and some other European countries are probably better still.
By my calculations (and excluding motorists/trespassers etc.) in the period 1999-2008 accidents to passenger trains resulted in 55 deaths in the USA - (Bourbonnais, Crescent City, Placentia, Glendale, Chicago, Chatsworth), and 59 deaths in the UK (Ladbroke Grove, Hatfield, Selby, Potters Bar, Ufton Nervet, Grayrigg). The US figure is probably higher, as I've likely missed some out, but I think the UK figure is correct. According to Wikipedia there were 46.76 billion passenger-kilometres in the UK in 2006, compared to 22.5 billion passenger-km in the USA. By this token, there was one fatality (including traincrew) per 4.09 billion passenger-km in the USA, and one per 7.93 billion passenger-km in the UK. These are obviously very rough and ready figures, but the relationship is clear.
I don't know the reasons for this, but I would speculate that it may be down to the relative lack of freight trains and grade crossings in the UK, together with better signalling (?).
Keith
A fine response; but I'd like to add a couple fine points.
For Illinois, 110-mph service finally may become a reality in the next couple years. P42's, Horizon, and Amfleet are all capable of running this fast. Illinois has long stretches of tangent between Chicago and Saint Louis; but trains would need to slow to 90 for the occassional curve. More curves and crossings are encountered between Chicago and south of Joliet, around Macoupin, and between north of Alton and Saint Louis. New tilting trains would allow 90 mph for most of the latter zones and eliminate the speed reduction for the occassional 1-degree curve.
As for stations, there is no denying that stops take time. A six-car train with a P42 can accelerate to 110 and brake to a stop in about five miles. A minute is saved for every 5 miles that can be run at 110 instead of 79. Some savings can be achieved even with relatively frequent intercity stops, such as Kenosha-Racine. A Talgo of similar capacity should do at least as well.
The problem of platform height not matching car floor height is not a serious safety hazard; but even a passenger not in a wheelchair may want crew assistance, and Midwest trains have fewer crew than cars.
Station stop dwell time for boarding and alighting passengers is exacerbated by allocating one or more car for a particular station. Instead, boarding ideally should be distributed evenly to use all available doors. This would be possible with computer-generated car and seat assignments. 200 commuters can board a 6-car Metra in less than a minute; but I've caught #304 at Springfield, IL when it took 8 minutes to load 100 passengers. It takes 35 miles at 110 just to make up the difference in boarding time. Streamlining boarding can gain a bigger payback than curve reduction and increasing speed.
At this time, the greater boarding delay problem arises from requirements for checking tickets and photo ID's before allowing passengers to board, the underlying problem at Springfield. Another inconvenience is encountered at Chicago Union Station where boarding checks are cut off 10 minutes before departure and entry to the boarding platform is barred 5 minutes before train time. Maybe some kind of secure screened passenger pen can be arranged at larger stations together with archetectural facilities for boarding. A station waiting room and modified jetways or mini-platforms maybe?
Cutting out intermediate stops for the sake of speed may leave the service without many passengers. Conversely, I believe the goal of intercity rail service is to make available affordable access and mobility to as many people as possible to reach their travel destinations with the greatest energy efficiency and least environmental damage.
Much of what you write about the need for increased capacity is true. However, the common wisdom that high passenger speeds are only warranted where they can be sustained is not true. Metra is allowed 70 mph on most lines, yet averages 30-45 mph. Its not hard for a 40 mph freight to keep pace. 79 mph Amtrak corridor trains may average 55 mph with stops which is not that different than transcontinental freights doing 50-60 mph. Long-distance trains with 100 miles between stations are more likely to overtake a freight; yet often are put in the hole in route for meets to keep freights on the main. The bigger problem is waiting in the hole for a long time because of a long distance to the next passing track.
Railway ManTrainManTyThe current Amtrak P42s, Amfleet cars, and Viewliners used in the eastern US are capable of doing 90 (and routinely do). The Superliners can go at least 70 (possibly higher) and the Cascades Talgos can probably go 100 or more. It's the track that restricts their speed... Actually it's the Method of Operation that restricts their speed. Most of the track used by Amtrak in the U.S. at present is either maintained to FRA Class V or is readily capable of Class V. The curves are another matter, of course, but the fundamental problem is that outside of the Northeast Corridor there are almost no lines in the U.S. with a Method of Operation that meets the FRA regulations for 80 mph or faster operation.
Method of Operation? I have never heard of this, although I would be interested to hear more. Please elaborate.
Railway ManThe F59 is engineered to identical standards for crashworthiness as any freight locomotive. Many outside of the railroad think that because it is lighter it somehow is less crashworthy. The F59 in the Chatsworth collision was not ripped apart but in fact did quite well. I would like to see statistics documenting that the European rail system "is a lot safer."
The F59 is engineered to identical standards for crashworthiness as any freight locomotive. Many outside of the railroad think that because it is lighter it somehow is less crashworthy. The F59 in the Chatsworth collision was not ripped apart but in fact did quite well.
I had seen just a couple overhead news photos of the F59 (most I saw were focused on the coaches) so my knowledge of the aftermath is limited. Reading the many threads here about the wreck, I gathered that since the SD70s pushed the Metrolink train from the point of impact, and the crew of the UP train survived while the Metrolink engineer did not, the weight of the locomotives had something to do with it.
In writing that the "European rail system is a lot safer" I had meant that there seems to be a lot less incidents resulting in loss of life or major derailments there. Maybe it's because many of the US wrecks are freight trains or switching accidents, which are much less common in Europe because there are a much less number of freight trains.
Railway ManI think you mean "PTC" (Postive Train Control) not "ATC" (Automatic Train Control); ATC does not meet the requirements of RSA08. RSA08 requires all Class 1 lines carrying intercity and commuter passenger trains and PIH hazmat to be equipped with PTC by 2015; this requirement will likely be extended to many lines owned by Class II and III railroads as well; we'll see what emerges from the RSAC process, hopefully in a few months. The 2015 deadline is challenging, to put it mildly.
Yes, I meant PTC. I was writing solely off memory and probably bungled a few facts.
Railway ManThe FRA has no prohibitions on use of Cascades Talgo trainsets or Acela because they are light; they could be used anywhere in the U.S. right now. They are fully compliant vehicles and while they might be lighter in total weight than a conventional Amfleet trainset, they are not less-strong.Perhaps you're confusing this with non-compliant vehicles such as the European-built DMUs and light-rail vehicles, which can only use trackage shared with freight trains and compliant passenger trainsets, at present, if they are "temporally separated," that is, the freight trains use the line during one part of the day and the passenger trains another, and one cannot enter the system if the other is still on the system. Usually the freight trains run at night and the passenger vehicles during the day.
I based this off your post "It's the Acela problem all over again, was anyone paying attention to that fiasco?" but I suppose they are FRA compliant anywhere, is that correct? I thought it may have been a waiver for those routes where they are used. The NEC has PTC (or is it something else) and a small amount of freight traffic, and I for all I know (not much about that route) the Cascades are segragated from freight traffic.
Railway ManI think the question you are really asking is, "When PTC is installed, will the FRA permit the use of non-compliant vehicles without the requirement for temporal separation? The answer is, who knows? A lot of people are hopeful it will, but the FRA has not said one way or the other, and no one has yet applied to the FRA to do so.
Yes, that's exactly what I was asking. Maybe not extremely non-compliant, but allowing for easier utilization of DMUs.
HarveyK400A fine response; but I'd like to add a couple fine points.For Illinois, 110-mph service finally may become a reality in the next couple years. P42's, Horizon, and Amfleet are all capable of running this fast. Illinois has long stretches of tangent between Chicago and Saint Louis; but trains would need to slow to 90 for the occassional curve. More curves and crossings are encountered between Chicago and south of Joliet, around Macoupin, and between north of Alton and Saint Louis. New tilting trains would allow 90 mph for most of the latter zones and eliminate the speed reduction for the occassional 1-degree curve.As for stations, there is no denying that stops take time. A six-car train with a P42 can accelerate to 110 and brake to a stop in about five miles. A minute is saved for every 5 miles that can be run at 110 instead of 79. Some savings can be achieved even with relatively frequent intercity stops, such as Kenosha-Racine. A Talgo of similar capacity should do at least as well. The problem of platform height not matching car floor height is not a serious safety hazard; but even a passenger not in a wheelchair may want crew assistance, and Midwest trains have fewer crew than cars. Station stop dwell time for boarding and alighting passengers is exacerbated by allocating one or more car for a particular station. Instead, boarding ideally should be distributed evenly to use all available doors. This would be possible with computer-generated car and seat assignments. 200 commuters can board a 6-car Metra in less than a minute; but I've caught #304 at Springfield, IL when it took 8 minutes to load 100 passengers. It takes 35 miles at 110 just to make up the difference in boarding time. Streamlining boarding can gain a bigger payback than curve reduction and increasing speed.At this time, the greater boarding delay problem arises from requirements for checking tickets and photo ID's before allowing passengers to board, the underlying problem at Springfield. Another inconvenience is encountered at Chicago Union Station where boarding checks are cut off 10 minutes before departure and entry to the boarding platform is barred 5 minutes before train time. Maybe some kind of secure screened passenger pen can be arranged at larger stations together with archetectural facilities for boarding. A station waiting room and modified jetways or mini-platforms maybe?Cutting out intermediate stops for the sake of speed may leave the service without many passengers. Conversely, I believe the goal of intercity rail service is to make available affordable access and mobility to as many people as possible to reach their travel destinations with the greatest energy efficiency and least environmental damage.Much of what you write about the need for increased capacity is true. However, the common wisdom that high passenger speeds are only warranted where they can be sustained is not true. Metra is allowed 70 mph on most lines, yet averages 30-45 mph. Its not hard for a 40 mph freight to keep pace. 79 mph Amtrak corridor trains may average 55 mph with stops which is not that different than transcontinental freights doing 50-60 mph. Long-distance trains with 100 miles between stations are more likely to overtake a freight; yet often are put in the hole in route for meets to keep freights on the main. The bigger problem is waiting in the hole for a long time because of a long distance to the next passing track.
The platform gap problem is an ADA compliance problem not a "safety problem." DOT has mandated no new platforms shall be built that are not floor-height +/- 5/8" and a gap greater than 3", and stated that lifts, bridge plates, and temporary ramps are no longer acceptable. The proposed rulemaking, docket OST 2006-2395, requires all new platforms outside of the NEC to be 15" ATR. Given typical passenger car widths (which are a little narrower than most freight equipment so they can fit into existing stations), that platform envelope is non-clearing for a Plate F boxcar and almost every freight locomotive in the U.S. Existing platforms are to be brought to this standard, too, according to the proposed rulemaking, but a timetable has not been issued for compliance. Even worse, there's no standard among the various passenger authorities on floor height, and there are lines with more than one type of equipment on them! There are required appeals winding through the process for several proposed new stations that can't achieve the new rule without very expensive construction of station tracks, appeals that I'm doubtful will succeed, and will likely be followed by very expensive litigation. This isn't a trivial issue.
There are some corridors where higher speeds gain some meaningful time, which is why I didn't issue a blanket statement. You picked two intercity corridors which happen at present to be overbuilt for the present-day demand upon them by freight (but maybe not for long in one of them, which will be an interesting challenge for the passenger railroad), and there is one Metra corridor that happens to have that kind of capacity but there are other Metra corridors that do not. I'm not nearly as sanguine about most of the corridors in the U.S., including most of the corridors to and through your city, because when we ask the model to speed up the passenger trains beyond 79 mph, the model blows up and the freight trains no longer run, or the passenger train can't make schedule, pick which you want to have happen. We can pencil in capacity to make it work, but the costs for this in most corridors start at $100 million and escalate toward $3-4 billion, depending upon the corridor.
I am not sanguine that the freight railroads will roll over dead and accept further abuse of their capacity by higher-speed intercity passenger trains, for a tenant that pays 30 cents or less on the dollar for the slot. But Washington may see fit to dictate by fiat. This will be an interesting year because the battle is already on, the sides are picking out armor and weapons, and my frequent-flyer miles flitting to and from D.C. are rapidly adding toward the pair of first-class round-trip ticket to New Zealand I'd like to have next winter. The commuter operators and some of the newer corridor operators, on the other hand, are usually much more realistic about partnering with the freight railroads, and while they are not passive negotiators, at least in principle they do accept that they do have to pay the full toll.
RWM - I am still hung up on the crossing issue. From what I have seen, hi-speed trains run on lines that have closed crossings. How would you ever get this off the ground if you still have the possibility of grade accidents? And this would be worse in the more populated areas, wouldn't it?
So the solution should be dedicated lines for passenger service with closed crossings and when pigs fly....
TrainManTyRailway ManTrainManTyThe current Amtrak P42s, Amfleet cars, and Viewliners used in the eastern US are capable of doing 90 (and routinely do). The Superliners can go at least 70 (possibly higher) and the Cascades Talgos can probably go 100 or more. It's the track that restricts their speed... Actually it's the Method of Operation that restricts their speed. Most of the track used by Amtrak in the U.S. at present is either maintained to FRA Class V or is readily capable of Class V. The curves are another matter, of course, but the fundamental problem is that outside of the Northeast Corridor there are almost no lines in the U.S. with a Method of Operation that meets the FRA regulations for 80 mph or faster operation. Method of Operation? I have never heard of this, although I would be interested to hear more. Please elaborate.Railway ManThe F59 is engineered to identical standards for crashworthiness as any freight locomotive. Many outside of the railroad think that because it is lighter it somehow is less crashworthy. The F59 in the Chatsworth collision was not ripped apart but in fact did quite well. I would like to see statistics documenting that the European rail system "is a lot safer." I had seen just a couple overhead news photos of the F59 (most I saw were focused on the coaches) so my knowledge of the aftermath is limited. Reading the many threads here about the wreck, I gathered that since the SD70s pushed the Metrolink train from the point of impact, and the crew of the UP train survived while the Metrolink engineer did not, the weight of the locomotives had something to do with it.In writing that the "European rail system is a lot safer" I had meant that there seems to be a lot less incidents resulting in loss of life or major derailments there. Maybe it's because many of the US wrecks are freight trains or switching accidents, which are much less common in Europe because there are a much less number of freight trains.Railway ManI think you mean "PTC" (Postive Train Control) not "ATC" (Automatic Train Control); ATC does not meet the requirements of RSA08. RSA08 requires all Class 1 lines carrying intercity and commuter passenger trains and PIH hazmat to be equipped with PTC by 2015; this requirement will likely be extended to many lines owned by Class II and III railroads as well; we'll see what emerges from the RSAC process, hopefully in a few months. The 2015 deadline is challenging, to put it mildly. Yes, I meant PTC. I was writing solely off memory and probably bungled a few facts.Railway ManThe FRA has no prohibitions on use of Cascades Talgo trainsets or Acela because they are light; they could be used anywhere in the U.S. right now. They are fully compliant vehicles and while they might be lighter in total weight than a conventional Amfleet trainset, they are not less-strong.Perhaps you're confusing this with non-compliant vehicles such as the European-built DMUs and light-rail vehicles, which can only use trackage shared with freight trains and compliant passenger trainsets, at present, if they are "temporally separated," that is, the freight trains use the line during one part of the day and the passenger trains another, and one cannot enter the system if the other is still on the system. Usually the freight trains run at night and the passenger vehicles during the day. I based this off your post "It's the Acela problem all over again, was anyone paying attention to that fiasco?" but I suppose they are FRA compliant anywhere, is that correct? I thought it may have been a waiver for those routes where they are used. The NEC has PTC (or is it something else) and a small amount of freight traffic, and I for all I know (not much about that route) the Cascades are segragated from freight traffic.Railway ManI think the question you are really asking is, "When PTC is installed, will the FRA permit the use of non-compliant vehicles without the requirement for temporal separation? The answer is, who knows? A lot of people are hopeful it will, but the FRA has not said one way or the other, and no one has yet applied to the FRA to do so. Yes, that's exactly what I was asking. Maybe not extremely non-compliant, but allowing for easier utilization of DMUs.
Ty -- good points and questions.
"Method of Operation" is the formal term for the system of rules, practices, and tools a railroad uses to operate a main track. "Tools" includes things such as wayside signaling, radio communications, and electronic systems. The most common Methods of Operation in the U.S. are Centralized Traffic Control, Track Warrant Control, Manual Block, Direct Traffic Control (including Form D), and Yard Limits. Each of these methods has FRA law written around it, building on prior ICC law, and all of it on top of general railroad industry practices that were developed and agreed upon by the railroad industry. For a given Method of Operation, the FRA sets limits on what is required to be in compliance with it, which includes things such as:
The Method of Operation is the most important characteristic of a railroad line, because it trumps everything. It determines capacity for freight and passenger trains. It informs what the quality of the track should be; e.g., there's no point in maintaining Class V track that allows 90 mph for passenger if the Method of Operation is TWC without Automatic Block Signals that only allows 59 mph.
You correctly zeroed in on the "Acela Problem" being the issue with carbody strength. The problem is the other way around, however, Acela is compliant. The Acela problem began when Amtrak wanted to deploy a high-speed European-style trainset to improve service on the NEC, which it needed to do both to attract new riders and fulfill its mandate, and also because the existing equipment is getting very long in the tooth and wasn't that good to begin with. Amtrak wanted to borrow European technology for a very good reason; it wanted to leverage existing technology and buy off the shelf. It did not want to start with a clean sheet of paper because engineering a high-speed passenger vehicle is just like engineering a new commercial jet liner: it's incredibly expensive and if you do not have lots of experience, you will probably make a lot of mistakes that will cost you dearly. (There's a reason why there are only two commercial builders of large jetliners in the world.)
Unfortunately, the FRA decided that none of the European trainsets Amtrak was looking at, such as the very good ICE trainset from Germany, would be sufficiently safe in a U.S. environment because unlike in Europe where the entire rail system is engineered to keep passenger trains apart from freight trains and each other, and the vehicles do not have structural strength that provides integrity in case of a collision, the entire U.S. rail system was engineered to accept that passenger trains would not be kept apart from freight trains and the safety would be provided by vehicle strength. That die was cast back in the 1800s, by the way. So, the Acela had to be engineered to meet FRA carbody strength requirements. That required a complete re-engineering, which wiped out all the ability to leverage off existing designs for all the sub-systems such as suspension, articulation, bogies, carbody structure, and rippled into the electrical and mechanical systems. The result was predictible, the design has numerous shortcomings, was grossly expensive, the construction ran into numerous difficulties, the cars have needed a lot of modifications to fix design errors and omissions.
MookieRWM - I am still hung up on the crossing issue. From what I have seen, hi-speed trains run on lines that have closed crossings. How would you ever get this off the ground if you still have the possibility of grade accidents? And this would be worse in the more populated areas, wouldn't it? So the solution should be dedicated lines for passenger service with closed crossings and when pigs fly....
The North-East Corridor is almost completely grade-separated. I think the high-speed lines in Europe and Asia are 100% grade-separated and fenced, but beaulieu is better equipped than I to affirm that. The proposed high-speed systems such as California's would be 100% grade-separated and fenced, at least where they run at high speeds, and to a large degree even where they weren't because they do not want to build heavy vehicles that can withstand colliding with an 80,000 tractor-trailer loaded with steel (like Bourbonnais, Illinois).
The FRA and the industry acknowledge that grade-crossing collisions are a serious drawback to deploying non-compliant vehicles, and there is a lot of study and thought being given to reducing the problem short of grade-separating all the crossings. Grade-separations, of course, are the best solution from a safety perspective, but are expensive. The less-well-known problem with grade separations is they are extremely hard to fit into many urban areas. They can ruin the property values of adjacent residential neighborhoods and the viability of commercial districts, and destroy street traffic flows, which tends to have ripple effects on things such as how kids walk to school, fire engines get to neighborhoods, and where people shop. Constructability is a major problem: when the grade-separation is built, it can do severe damage for several years to traffic flow, local business receipts, and the environment. Many a municipality rues the day it decided to build a grade separation, and now the emphasis is often on building a bypass to move the trains around the city. For passenger, the usual solution (since it has to go into the city to be useful) is to elevate or tunnel. Tunnelling in an urban area is a solution whose pricetag invariably ends up in the multi-billion dollar range.
I must be a little slower to understand some things[age,IQ,bad eyes,stupidity etc]but I read the Trains article twice and never learned how to fix AMTRAK.
However the preceding discussion was interesting.
Ah, that explains a lot. So the high speed lines need ABS? Is CTC also acceptable?
I see what you mean about the Acela and Talgos. Since starting from basically scratch to comply with FRA requirements is the only way to do it, there are bound to be problems. That's what we've seen with the frame cracks on the Talgos, the Acela brake disc problems, and the early Acela derailments. If Amtrak had used proven technology that was not FRA compliant, there wouldn't have been many teething problems.
The new Austin, TX, light rail system is using non-FRA compliant DMUs, capable of 100+ MPH operation (I think it goes up to 110 or something) on a freight line. The freight trains will operate during the night, while the DMUs will operate during the day.
Will the new Caltran HSR trains be FRA compliant? If they are, they'll have a lot of teething problems too since they will have to be either designed from scratch or adapted from the Acela.
And if new FRA compliant DMUs are used elsewhere in the US, would they be from scratch also? I know there is an Acela varient in Colorado (stored at a testing center maybe?) that isn't electric. It looks just like the Acela except sans pantographs and the blue is replaced with red. I think it's LPG powered or something.
More info on this, anyone?
TrainManTyAh, that explains a lot. So the high speed lines need ABS? Is CTC also acceptable?I see what you mean about the Acela and Talgos. Since starting from basically scratch to comply with FRA requirements is the only way to do it, there are bound to be problems. That's what we've seen with the frame cracks on the Talgos, the Acela brake disc problems, and the early Acela derailments. If Amtrak had used proven technology that was not FRA compliant, there wouldn't have been many teething problems. The new Austin, TX, light rail system is using non-FRA compliant DMUs, capable of 100+ MPH operation (I think it goes up to 110 or something) on a freight line. The freight trains will operate during the night, while the DMUs will operate during the day.Will the new Caltran HSR trains be FRA compliant? If they are, they'll have a lot of teething problems too since they will have to be either designed from scratch or adapted from the Acela.And if new FRA compliant DMUs are used elsewhere in the US, would they be from scratch also? I know there is an Acela varient in Colorado (stored at a testing center maybe?) that isn't electric. It looks just like the Acela except sans pantographs and the blue is replaced with red. I think it's LPG powered or something. More info on this, anyone?
Toooooo many acronyms -- allow me to restate definitions:
ABS = Automatic Block Signals; wayside signals at the entrances to fixed block limits that do not grant authority for train movement, but only advise of track conditions ahead. ABS is an overlay on a Method of Operation such as CTC, TWC, DTC, Timetable & Train Order, or Yard Limits; it's not a Method of Operation
CTC = Centralized Traffic Control, a Method of Operation that uses wayside signals at the entrances to fixed block limits that grant authority for train movement, and advise of track conditions ahead just like ABS signals. Most CTC systems consist of Absolute Signals and Intermediate (aka ABS) signals. The Absolute Signals grant authority and are denoted by the lack of a numberplate, and are typically found at ends of sidings, entrances to interlockings, drawbridge approaches, and locations where it is desired to positively hold trains (these are called hold signals). The Intermediate Signal is denoted by the presence of a numberplate, and are typically found at intermediate locations between Absolute Signals in order to make block lengths feasible for broken-rail detection, and to create additional capacity for more trains following more closely than would be possible if the only signals were at ends of sidings.
To your first question, the FRA has speed limits that require increasingly more positive Methods of Operation and increasing safety measures:
So to go to a faster speed than 79 mph, you have to install ACS, ATC, or PTC. These can all be an overlay on CTC or a stand-alone system. Looking forward, no one is going to install anymore ACS or ATC except as a stop-gap measure. In the Northeast Corridor, Amtrak and the commuter agencies have made a huge investment in a unique ATS system called Advanced Speed Enforcement System (ASES). It will be upgraded to comply with the Positive Train Control requirements of the Railroad Safety Act of 2008. Elsewhere in the U.S., UP, BNSF, CSX and NS have all agreed to employ a PTC system manufactured by Wabtec; most of the commuter lines that run on these Class 1s will likely emulate this. What KCS, CPR, and CN will do is not known at this time. However, none of these Class 1s are, on their own dime, planning to invest the substantial sums necessary to make their PTC systems plus-80 mph compliant with FRA regulations since they do not intend to run freight trains faster than 79 mph. If Amtrak or someone else wants to run faster than 79 mph on a Class 1s railroad, they will have to come up with the money necessary to design, permit, and install the required upgrades to the standard PTC system.
You've summarized the design-flaw problems with Acela. The problems, unfortunately, go much deeper than just the reinvent-the-wheel design; the weight and bulk of the Acela vehicle necessary to make it FRA-compliant creates significant problems in obtaining the same performance from the traction, suspension, HVAC, and other systems, that one can get with a lighter vehicle. Imagine the problems in designing a commercial jet's landing gear and engines if you had to build the airframe out of 1/2" steel sheet vs. thin aluminum, and you can see where this leads. The Acela is as a result a highly compromised design compared to things like the ICE train.
It's a very interesting question what will happen with CalTrain and California High-Speed Rail. CalTrain's plan is that their forthcoming PTC system, which they call CBOSS, will enable them to successfully apply to the FRA to implement non-compliant vehicles, both their own and the future HSR trains running on their tracks. I and a lot of other people are watching this carefully because it's terra incognito.
There's a lot of people who would like to have non-compliant DMUs, and not have to use temporal separation as in Austin. The Colorado Railcar DMU is compliant, but it's anyone's guess if that design will be the foundation of a new era in commuter rail, or a dead end, given Colorado Railcar's bankrupcty. Someone will fairly soon start getting serious about stating that PTC will make the U.S. mixed freight/passenger rail environment safe enough for non-compliant DMUs, and since there's a huge price differential between building a separate, non-joint-use infrastructure for non-compliant DMUs, and running them on existing freight infrastructure, there's a lot of incentive here. Whether the FRA will agree? I have no idea. Won't come easy, though.
Railway ManElsewhere in the U.S., UP, BNSF, CSX and NS have all agreed to employ a PTC system manufactured by Wabtec; most of the commuter lines that run on these Class 1s will likely emulate this. What KCS, CPR, and CN will do is not known at this time. However, none of these Class 1s are, on their own dime, planning to invest the substantial sums necessary to make their PTC systems plus-80 mph compliant with FRA regulations since they do not intend to run freight trains faster than 79 mph. If Amtrak or someone else wants to run faster than 79 mph on a Class 1s railroad, they will have to come up with the money necessary to design, permit, and install the required upgrades to the standard PTC system.
So the government is paying for this PTC system, correct? At least the system allowing up to 79 MPH?
Railway ManYou've summarized the design-flaw problems with Acela. The problems, unfortunately, go much deeper than just the reinvent-the-wheel design; the weight and bulk of the Acela vehicle necessary to make it FRA-compliant creates significant problems in obtaining the same performance from the traction, suspension, HVAC, and other systems, that one can get with a lighter vehicle. Imagine the problems in designing a commercial jet's landing gear and engines if you had to build the airframe out of 1/2" steel sheet vs. thin aluminum, and you can see where this leads. The Acela is as a result a highly compromised design compared to things like the ICE train.
Definitely. I would be willing to bet that the ICE and other non-FRA compliant vehicles have a far superior acceleration and current draw because of the reduced weight. Or does the Acela have more powerful traction motors to compensate? The extra strain on the traction motors, suspension, brakes, and even the ground-based power system (that supplies power to the overhead wires) from all the extra weight probably doesn't come cheap. It all adds up...
I was reading an article today (Power from the People in Popular Science) that was wondering why the mass transit uses such large and heavy vehicles to move such a light load. Hopefully if someone can convince the FRA to allow non-compliant DMUs and EMUs (electric multiple units) then the weight and size can be reduced to be more efficient. That should save a big portion of the electric bill...
And even with Colorado Railcar in bankruptcy, if the market is there, someone will spring up to fill the new market. Bombardier, Siemens, or other subway-type car builders maybe? Or maybe a company with more experience with diesel propulsion... GE maybe?
DMUs do seem to be gaining popularity here in the US; it seemed that after the RDCs, it was swept aside by locomotive-hauled trains. But recently they have been making a comeback. Florida's TriMet and Austin have both opted for DMUs, one FRA-compliant, the other not. But will Amtrak spring for them? I don't know...
TrainManTy So the government is paying for this PTC system, correct? At least the system allowing up to 79 MPH?
No, I don't think so! Congress mandated PTC, but the railroads will have to fund the installation from their own capital budgets.
Mike
I wouldn't say fully railroad-funded installation of PTC is a certainty. Can't railroads build in the cost of the PTC mandate in new service agreement(s) and renewal(s) with Amtrak? Maybe the stimulus money will go to Amtrak for the purpose of making the railroads whole for installing PTC.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.