I remember being very impressed by the extremely smooth ride at about 50 and 60 mph, on the lightweight highspeed ex-Cincinnati and Lake Erie "Red Devils" used on the Liberty Bell interurban run from Philly (Upper Darby) to Allentown, and I have been told the Indiana Railroad High Speeds were even smoother. Very clever truck design from what I have been told.
When Pittsburgh Railways tried PCC's in interuban operations on the Charleroi and Washington lines, they decided something better than then the normal B-2 Clark Equipment truck was needed, so on 1600-series was retrofitted with a new St. Louis design truck and about 15? of the on-order 1700 standee window new PCC's came with this different truck. Similarly, Red Arrow for its post-WWII St. Louis double-end cars, not strictly PCC's but with the PCC body design and conventional cam-control electrics, used a conventional drop-equalizer MCB-like truck instead of a PCC design.
It would seem that certain railroads still haven't learned from the days of Penn Central. In the immediate postwar period, the streamlined cars by ACF, SLCC, or Budd ran just as well as the Pullman heavies. Relatively speaking of course, since most roads pretty much ran themselves into the ground during the early '40s. When you look at Penn Central, and the amount of new equipment they got, it probably made their number of derailments worse because track maintenance wasn't anywhere close to a priority. This was the case even on busy sections like the Northeast Corridor, hence why the Metroliners (and several years later, even the Acela's) were unable to reach their designed high speeds.
I completely get that rolling stock is most useful when its moving, but the "better to move over bad track than be idle" concept is old and really self-harming at this point. If our trackwork over here was built to the same standards as those in France or Japan, I'm almost certain the Talgo, Keystone, and X trains would've caught on quicker. Also, if more time and development had been spent on these concepts, we'd be better off today. Railroads themselves don't seem to view the concept of well-spent time as well as the builders did. EMD and GE spent time and precision with their diesel development. While they weren't as successful in that field, ALCo, Baldwin, and Lima did the same thing with their steamers. Some of the failure of course came from railroads not using that technology in the best way (C&O)...
Anyway, if I we were to reintroduce full-on lightweight trains to the US (meaning less than 50 tons per single-level car), they would only have good reception on the NY-DC Northeast Corridor, and the Pacific Northwest Corridor. Since Amtrak actually owns those rails, their trains can run better and smoother than if they were to run on the roadbeds of say UP or CSX.
RailfanGXYAnyway, if I we were to reintroduce full-on lightweight trains to the US (meaning less than 50 tons per single-level car), they would only have good reception on the NY-DC Northeast Corridor, and the Pacific Northwest Corridor. Since Amtrak actually owns those rails, their trains can run better and smoother than if they were to run on the roadbeds of say UP or CSX.
I believe the only rights of way that Amtrak owns are the NEC from DC to Boston and some mileage in Michigan.
On the West Coast, Amtrak doesn't own any of the rights of way.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Amtrak also owns the "Post Road" branch used by the Boston section of the Lake Shore. The Empire Service lines are leased by Amtrak between Hoffmans where the line to Selkirk yard heads southeast and Poughkeepsie, where Metro-North ownership begins. The West Side line in New York City is also Amtrak-owned.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.