I realize that you do not want to ever put freight on HSR. However you may want to put full bi-level conventional passenger equipment on that line since the axel loading will only be a small amount more. I may be wrong but the Victorville - Las Vegas proposed clearances (including CAT) will not clear superliners. Does anyone know for sure?
Railway Man Unsatisfactory ride quality is usually a result of (1) poor surface and line (2) rough wheel-rail contact area characteristics. Bogie design and car geometry can create problems too, but usually those are all-or-nothing phenomena, i.e., either "it works" or "it doesn't work."
Unsatisfactory ride quality is usually a result of (1) poor surface and line (2) rough wheel-rail contact area characteristics. Bogie design and car geometry can create problems too, but usually those are all-or-nothing phenomena, i.e., either "it works" or "it doesn't work."
I think I am mixing up two kinds of bogie problems.
In your technical paper, you mainly talk about bogie problems on the high axle load freight cars. High axle loads are given as a reason for the rail surface to take a pounding, and a high axle load freight car with the trucks out of spec give the rail surface a real pounding. I am thinking that the maintenance cost issue you were talking about was one of keeping the freight car fleet up to a high enough standard so they don't damage the rails in a way to impede passenger service at 90+ MPH on the same line.
The second kind of bogie problem is the one I was thinking about on the passenger coaches. You suggest that the passenger bogie is an all or nothing proposition -- you either run safely at a given speed or you are above the critical speed and you jump the tracks.
There are the ride quality problems related to rough track, but there is also evidence of ride quality problems related to bogie stability at speeds below where you jump the tracks. I had read a discussion in a British journal on railroad technology where the authors were relating dynamic stability to 1) the rail profile, 2) the wheel profile, and 3) the directional compliances (spring rates) in the bogie, and they were complaining that spotty maintenance of a certain class of coaches created the situation where you could be OK in one coach and bounced around in another coach. I have also wondered if many reports of rough riding on Amtrak might have to do with worn journal guides more than particularly rough track.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul, I think what I did was write without clarity.
What I meant was this, for the passenger ride issue:
As far as freight bogies, it's not feasible to build and maintain freight cars with 286K axle loads to run on plus-90 mph track without severe economic penalties. The rail profile desireable for high-speed passenger is not the rail profile desireable for heavy freight. They're fundamentally incompatible. The rail surface required for a good ride quality for passenger is not the rail surface that can be obtained if freight runs on the same line, without a very high maintenance cost and greatly diminished rail lifespan. I suppose it might be possible to build a freight bogie that didn't kill rail on a high-speed rail line, but I don't think anyone would want to pay for it. The economics all point toward separate track structures. This is not to say that a high-speed passenger train cannot "get off" the high-speed line and "run conventional" on a line that carries freight, as you would commonly find in last-mile situations in a major terminal, where there isn't spare right-of-way laying around to place a new passenger track onto, or at a major river crossing. Of course, the passenger train speed will be knocked down to 79 mph (or much less) and the ride quality won't be so hot. This is the near-term solution I think we'll see in many corridors, because the cost per mile to build new HSR passenger train infrastructure in a city center can easily be 10-30 times the cost to build it out in the suburbs or farmland between cities.
RWM
blue streak 1I realize that you do not want to ever put freight on HSR. However you may want to put full bi-level conventional passenger equipment on that line since the axel loading will only be a small amount more. I may be wrong but the Victorville - Las Vegas proposed clearances (including CAT) will not clear superliners. Does anyone know for sure?
I'm not so sure you want to run Superliners or California Cars on a high-speed line. The weight per axle is more than twice that of a high speed train. I am certain that the vertical clearances should allow for a double-deck TGV or Shinkansen and 25-50kV electrification.
Las Vegas doesn't seem like a high-volume destination where HSR would be viable with trains only every 1-2 hours without a dinner and show included. This would be like the NEC with fewer Acelas and no Regional, long distance, or commuter services to support the infrastructure.
A more conventional (110-125 mph?) train on a high speed line from LA to Victorville could continue to Las Vegas over the existing line. Hourly expresses to San Francisco, Richmond, and Sacramento and a Central Valley local might be fleeted to allow a conventional train to Las Vegas. Dual-powered gas turbine-electric/electric high-speed trains would be needed to fit in with more high speed traffic. It's a question of tailoring the application to the need.
The type of car, Superliner or regular coach, brings up another point not brought up in these discussions so far. That is: why is the person traveling, why are we running this train, and for whom. Yes, it is all part of marketing but we the type of service being offered will dictate the equipment and speed. Just moving people from place to place is the most basic of service, needs only a car with decent seating; if it is commuter, up to two hour ride, one type of seat, but if long distance, then more comfortable seat is needed. If long distance, then is the service for business or tourist? Each has different needs of speed and amenities. How important...and different...is the scenery for a tourist or for a businessman? I could go on and on, but you get what I mean. The reason for the traveling as well as the travel conveyences as part of marketing has to be considered in determining any service, and more so with high speed if only to determine return on investment (dollars and cents, and other factors).
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
I think there needs to be an understanding of what levels of comfort we are talking about . I would certainly expect a much higher level of comfort on an inter city train than on a local or a commuter train. In Europe the inter city trains have a much more comfortable seating in 2ND class than do other trains. I didn't see any 3-2 seating on inter city trains, common on lesser trains.Most business travelers in Europe travel in in what they call standard class now. The train trip between Paris- Lyons or Frankfurt- Munich is a long trip and rates a decent seat. They have premium standard class which caters to business. The business traveler will always be the backbone of any inter- city service.
Railway Man Paul, I think what I did was write without clarity.What I meant was this, for the passenger ride issue:Track is far and away the primary cause of poor ride quality. Bogies are usually only a cause of poor ride quality if they are not maintained, or a bad design to begin with. Poor bogie designs and unmaintained bogies usually are a result of trying to design and maintain a bogie that will make-up for poor track quality. In other words, if the track is poor quality, it's hard to make up for it with a better bogie. It's asking too much of the bogie. There's been a lot of effort to try to solve the track problem with a bogie solution; I'd rather just solve the track problem with the track.There are some bogie designs that have demonstrated poor tracking qualities. There's usually not much that's feasible to improve them other than scrap them and start over, or stiffen the ride so much that while the bogie becomes safe, the ride quality goes to hell.As far as freight bogies, it's not feasible to build and maintain freight cars with 286K axle loads to run on plus-90 mph track without severe economic penalties. The rail profile desireable for high-speed passenger is not the rail profile desireable for heavy freight. They're fundamentally incompatible. The rail surface required for a good ride quality for passenger is not the rail surface that can be obtained if freight runs on the same line, without a very high maintenance cost and greatly diminished rail lifespan. I suppose it might be possible to build a freight bogie that didn't kill rail on a high-speed rail line, but I don't think anyone would want to pay for it. The economics all point toward separate track structures. This is not to say that a high-speed passenger train cannot "get off" the high-speed line and "run conventional" on a line that carries freight, as you would commonly find in last-mile situations in a major terminal, where there isn't spare right-of-way laying around to place a new passenger track onto, or at a major river crossing. Of course, the passenger train speed will be knocked down to 79 mph (or much less) and the ride quality won't be so hot. This is the near-term solution I think we'll see in many corridors, because the cost per mile to build new HSR passenger train infrastructure in a city center can easily be 10-30 times the cost to build it out in the suburbs or farmland between cities. RWM
I wasn't aware that there was a difference in optimal rail profile for freight and high speed passenger.
Even so, I think the more pertinent question is whether 110-150 mph passenger services can co-exist with freight.
It's mostly a matter of traffic volumes, axle loads, and speeds. Freight is at one end of the spectrum with high axle weight and moderate speed; and passenger at the other with the exponential effect of speed. At the end of the day, either one can degrade surface and line more than the other. Running passenger trains requiring Class VI or higher standards simply is going to cost more to maintain. Are the volumes of traffic condusive to sharing infrastructure costs or not?
Most high-speed lines have evolved as trunks where trains do get off and run at more conventional speeds for a distance.
The 3-piece freight truck is adequate for the speeds freights operate. Freight railroads don't want to be resurfacing and relining tracks any more often than necessary. It's as easy to surface and line to Class VI or better as Class V, taking longer to degrade and avoiding more frequent maintenance. Track must be maintained to a pretty high level for 60-70 mph intermodals and other priority trains to minimize rapid degradation and more frequent maintenance.
If higher freight speeds are desired, more expensive features of high speed passenger trucks can be adopted and weights on axles can be reduced along with trains designed for less drag.
Furthermore, I rode the BNSF between Naperville and Chicago recently; and the ride was decent, if not as smooth as Europe. It's a lot better than the CTA. Even the newly rebuilt subway tracks on concrete "ties" cast in place on the tunnel invert get rough from slight mis-alignments above 35 mph.
I suppose there may be a breakdown of intercity travel by trip purpose somewhere. I just wonder if business travel is the backbone for intercity. Kinda deserves a separate thread.
This is an interesting discussion! What level of interoperability should be expected, desired, or will prove economical can really drive the final product.
There are those who say, "freight and passenger must be completely separated" as if it was etched in stone on the tablet that Moses dropped on the way down the mountain. (along with "wait an hour after eating before swimming", "don't run with scissors", and two others.)
Then, there are those like Gil Carmichael who have been insistent on including freight railroading in the plans.
I think I fall closer to the second camp.
I'm of a mind that there is enough overlap between existing frt network and desired HSR (110 mph) network that it would be a mistake to leave freight out of the discussion. Certainly, it would be a big mistake to let coal trains or stack trains go tramping up and down class VI track at 60 mph, but certainly a premium trucked, lower axle loading intermodal train could fill some slots on that class IV track.
In some cases, it could create new market niches or compete with team drivers. Overnight Atlanta and Charlotte to North Jersey anyone? In others, it could just help increase the capacity of a line segment, such as Cleveland to Chicago. One passenger and two freight tracks - interoperable - would likely be cheaper to own and operate than two of each - separated.
If we're going to spend all this public money, lets get the biggest bang for the buck we can.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
HarveyK400It's as easy to surface and line to Class VI or better as Class V, taking longer to degrade and avoiding more frequent maintenance.
It's as easy to surface and line to Class VI or better as Class V, taking longer to degrade and avoiding more frequent maintenance.
No sir.
oltmanndThis is an interesting discussion! What level of interoperability should be expected, desired, or will prove economical can really drive the final product. There are those who say, "freight and passenger must be completely separated" as if it was etched in stone on the tablet that Moses dropped on the way down the mountain. (along with "wait an hour after eating before swimming", "don't run with scissors", and two others.) Then, there are those like Gil Carmichael who have been insistent on including freight railroading in the plans. I think I fall closer to the second camp. I'm of a mind that there is enough overlap between existing frt network and desired HSR (110 mph) network that it would be a mistake to leave freight out of the discussion. Certainly, it would be a big mistake to let coal trains or stack trains go tramping up and down class VI track at 60 mph, but certainly a premium trucked, lower axle loading intermodal train could fill some slots on that class IV track. In some cases, it could create new market niches or compete with team drivers. Overnight Atlanta and Charlotte to North Jersey anyone? In others, it could just help increase the capacity of a line segment, such as Cleveland to Chicago. One passenger and two freight tracks - interoperable - would likely be cheaper to own and operate than two of each - separated. If we're going to spend all this public money, lets get the biggest bang for the buck we can.
A month ago, I agreed with you in the 90-110 range, but the more I learn each day, the more I am convinced that 90-plus is not viable. The track people have really disabused me of the idea, and I was already highly skeptical from the train-control aspect.
How did railroads handle this dilemma in the streamliner era and the heavyweight era?
Were ride characteristics poor by today's standards, but good in relation to the standards of the time?
I've read often that steam engines were very rough on the rails.
jclassHow did railroads handle this dilemma in the streamliner era and the heavyweight era? Were ride characteristics poor by today's standards, but good in relation to the standards of the time? I've read often that steam engines were very rough on the rails.
Freight and passenger were all of the same demensions or patterns so that engeneering and technology was able to accomodate the fit but passenger trains did run at higher speeds than freight (and that is a very broad, generalization of the factors).
Rail was 39 feet long each, staggard so that no joints were opposite the other. Track crews kept the rail as level, straight, and smooth, even the ballast edeges could be used as true!
Steam engines did pound rail since the piston and rod motion caused forces on the rail a diesel or electric doesn't. Even counter balancing did not totally even it out.
But the big question, or arguement, is should freight and passenger trains operate on the same right of way? Or on the same track? Those involved in traffic today say "no" to sharing track and "not really a great idea" to sharing rights of way (seams that each side fears a derailment of the other will mess up their auto insurance premiums [he said sarcastically]). I would think that, from an operation standpoint, common sense says the two should not meet in long distance operations and might be able to be tolerated in commuter operations. A freight railroad that cannot service its customers properly without having to run and hide because of scheduled passenger train, at least is going to increase its costs and at worst lose business. Likewise a passenger operation that cannot run frequently and speedily without being held up by slow or switching freights, will lose its customers. The nostalgic concepts of going in the hole for the Limited do not make it in today's railroad world. And would be suicidal in a HSR operation. So, ideally, yes, the two types of servcie should be kept as seperately as possible so that both can thrive on thier own merits.
My feeling about "jet age" engineering is quite different. Yes, there were a lot of neat things about jet age electronics, etc., but I never liked the Metroliner...it made me feel like chopped liver being squeezed into a tiny tube. My analagy is that way back when (yes, even before my time) theater goers were treated to the dark, the lush, the plus...everything the home wasn't; it was a different experience than anyplace else. Today, you go in and sit down in a room that's just like Jack's cellar without the model trains: bland, cold, characterless, just like everyother basement on the block and they call it a theater. A train, especially a long distance train, has to be more than a street bus ride, and it sure better be better than a flying sausage! I thought the UA Turbo trains had a good crossover feeling between traditional railroad and airplanes, but never found that in a Metroliner car.
"Harvey K 400:
Furthermore, I rode the BNSF between Naperville and Chicago recently; and the ride was decent, if not as smooth as Europe. It's a lot better than the CTA. "
Really? Maybe it depends on what train you rode. I rode the non-stop, which averages almost 60 mph so it must hit ~70, I would guess, in some stretches. The ride was terrible, at times bottoming out, and also having a lot of lateral hunting. CTA? Apples and oranges.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Ha! I rode the lead cab car from Harvard, Il towards Chicago and I clocked us doing 65 MPH against the mile markers (this is the old C&NW Northwest Line). Later that day I rode an "inspection train" for guests of UP and Metra (passenger and transit advocates, media, Operation Lifesaver, etc) up and down the UP Metra lines, and I was not in a leading cab car and didn't clock any times, but we ran as an express without stops. On neither of these trains did I notice any particular bounce or sidesway -- thought the ride was smooth. I was impressed because back in the 70's when I commuted on North Line of C&NW, there was noticable sidesway -- that was the one thing I remembered about those rides.
As a general notion of experiment and control, if one person rode BNSF on the Naperville line and had a smooth ride, another got bounced around, I would look more to the trucks rather than the track -- of course as mentioned this may be comparing a local with an express and speed is a difference.
Again, drawing on highway experience, a road that is rough at high speeds is often equally rough at low speeds. That the roughness gets accentuated with speed so dramatically on rails suggests, yes, there is roughness of the roadbed or rail surfaces, but the bogies and suspension are doing something to amplify it with speed, suggesting operating on the forward slope of a resonance, where resonance is achieved at the bogie critical speed.
Paul:
I rode both the fairly new Sumitomo cars with Atchison trucks as well as the older Budd cars (with GSC trucks?). Both ran rough on the express runs. I recall commuting on the CNW West (Geneva) Line back in the 70's. Similar rough ride on the 5:05 express. So perhaps it is less-than-optimal track condition that speed exaggerates. It certainly suggests the incompatibility of freight with even modestly fast passenger runs. Given the increased freight axle loadings now vs. 35-40 years ago, it is even more a problem.
henry6 Freight and passenger were all of the same demensions or patterns so that engeneering and technology was able to accomodate the fit but passenger trains did run at higher speeds than freight (and that is a very broad, generalization of the factors). Rail was 39 feet long each, staggard so that no joints were opposite the other. Track crews kept the rail as level, straight, and smooth, even the ballast edeges could be used as true! Steam engines did pound rail since the piston and rod motion caused forces on the rail a diesel or electric doesn't. Even counter balancing did not totally even it out. But the big question, or arguement, is should freight and passenger trains operate on the same right of way? Or on the same track? Those involved in traffic today say "no" to sharing track and "not really a great idea" to sharing rights of way (seams that each side fears a derailment of the other will mess up their auto insurance premiums [he said sarcastically]). I would think that, from an operation standpoint, common sense says the two should not meet in long distance operations and might be able to be tolerated in commuter operations. A freight railroad that cannot service its customers properly without having to run and hide because of scheduled passenger train, at least is going to increase its costs and at worst lose business. Likewise a passenger operation that cannot run frequently and speedily without being held up by slow or switching freights, will lose its customers. The nostalgic concepts of going in the hole for the Limited do not make it in today's railroad world. And would be suicidal in a HSR operation. So, ideally, yes, the two types of servcie should be kept as seperately as possible so that both can thrive on thier own merits. My feeling about "jet age" engineering is quite different. Yes, there were a lot of neat things about jet age electronics, etc., but I never liked the Metroliner...it made me feel like chopped liver being squeezed into a tiny tube. My analagy is that way back when (yes, even before my time) theater goers were treated to the dark, the lush, the plus...everything the home wasn't; it was a different experience than anyplace else. Today, you go in and sit down in a room that's just like Jack's cellar without the model trains: bland, cold, characterless, just like everyother basement on the block and they call it a theater. A train, especially a long distance train, has to be more than a street bus ride, and it sure better be better than a flying sausage! I thought the UA Turbo trains had a good crossover feeling between traditional railroad and airplanes, but never found that in a Metroliner car.
Today the Superliners provide a fine ride as do the Amtrak California cars. I am a firm believer that Amtrak retired the Budd cars far to soon. We should have copied Via Rail in this regard. The seven or eight experiences I have had in Viewliner sleepers leave much to be desired. If they are going to build additional Viewliners I hope they send them to Pueblo for further testing as they are noisy and ride very rough compared to the old Budd cars. I have been hearing good thibgs about the NJT double deck cars and do not know why they cannot be adapted for eastern long distance services.
California's proposed HSR system is designed to operate at speeds of 200 -220 mph and it has no place operating on any trackage shared with freights, in fact I have my doubts if it can be compatible with Bay commuter trains along the peninsula.
Al - in - Stockton
passengerfan I too rode the Metroliners and was not impressed
Metroliners were not great equipment, but to a teenager, they looked cool and they were fast! (and they were a big commercial success. They pretty much single-handedly saved intercity passenger service in the US, in my opinion)
passengerfanCalifornia's proposed HSR system is designed to operate at speeds of 200 -220 mph and it has no place operating on any trackage shared with freights,
I agree. Not even on the last mile. It's not practical to design 220 mph equipment to meet FRA requirements for interoperability.
Railway Man oltmannd This is an interesting discussion! What level of interoperability should be expected, desired, or will prove economical can really drive the final product. There are those who say, "freight and passenger must be completely separated" as if it was etched in stone on the tablet that Moses dropped on the way down the mountain. (along with "wait an hour after eating before swimming", "don't run with scissors", and two others.) Then, there are those like Gil Carmichael who have been insistent on including freight railroading in the plans. I think I fall closer to the second camp. I'm of a mind that there is enough overlap between existing frt network and desired HSR (110 mph) network that it would be a mistake to leave freight out of the discussion. Certainly, it would be a big mistake to let coal trains or stack trains go tramping up and down class VI track at 60 mph, but certainly a premium trucked, lower axle loading intermodal train could fill some slots on that class IV track. In some cases, it could create new market niches or compete with team drivers. Overnight Atlanta and Charlotte to North Jersey anyone? In others, it could just help increase the capacity of a line segment, such as Cleveland to Chicago. One passenger and two freight tracks - interoperable - would likely be cheaper to own and operate than two of each - separated. If we're going to spend all this public money, lets get the biggest bang for the buck we can. A month ago, I agreed with you in the 90-110 range, but the more I learn each day, the more I am convinced that 90-plus is not viable. The track people have really disabused me of the idea, and I was already highly skeptical from the train-control aspect. RWM
oltmannd This is an interesting discussion! What level of interoperability should be expected, desired, or will prove economical can really drive the final product. There are those who say, "freight and passenger must be completely separated" as if it was etched in stone on the tablet that Moses dropped on the way down the mountain. (along with "wait an hour after eating before swimming", "don't run with scissors", and two others.) Then, there are those like Gil Carmichael who have been insistent on including freight railroading in the plans. I think I fall closer to the second camp. I'm of a mind that there is enough overlap between existing frt network and desired HSR (110 mph) network that it would be a mistake to leave freight out of the discussion. Certainly, it would be a big mistake to let coal trains or stack trains go tramping up and down class VI track at 60 mph, but certainly a premium trucked, lower axle loading intermodal train could fill some slots on that class IV track. In some cases, it could create new market niches or compete with team drivers. Overnight Atlanta and Charlotte to North Jersey anyone? In others, it could just help increase the capacity of a line segment, such as Cleveland to Chicago. One passenger and two freight tracks - interoperable - would likely be cheaper to own and operate than two of each - separated. If we're going to spend all this public money, lets get the biggest bang for the buck we can.
There are a few places where there is already some experience with >79 mph passenger service and freight operation.
1. Hudson line from Stuyvesant to Poughkeepsie. I believe there are some stretches of class VI track (or at least there were 20 years ago) mixed with a couple pair of road freight trains a day. The freight traffic is generally at night because of the Metro North curfew on the south end of the line. No unit trains or stacks, though. Freight trains run with standard Conrail/PRR 4 aspect cab signal with LSL train stop system. Wood ties and 132# rail. 50 mph max freight train speed.
2. NEC. Newark DE to Bayview MD (and either Baltimore or Anacostia to Bowie MD). All class VI track. Lots of 286,000# unit trains. No stacks. Typically 3 or 4 train pairs a day north and south of Perryville. Freight operates with standard Conrail/PRR 4 aspect cab signals with LSL. 50 mph max freight train speed. NS pays a high trackage rights fee for use and an additional chunk for 286,000# cars. NS also has to jump through hoops to keep high impact wheels off Amtrak. WILD at Mill Creek PA used to identify cars for set out at Harrisburg/Enola.
3. ATSF (okay, BNSF) transcon. Lots of 70 freight/90 passenger class V track. Older than dirt inductive train stop. Lots and lots of stack trains. Amtrak tested their RoadRailers at 100 mph on the NEC in order to qualify them for 90 mph on the ATSF. (Amtrak Roadrailers had swing hanger trucks unlike NS's which use conventional 3 piece trucks)
Using these three as starting points, there are no engineering solutions going forward from here? Wouldn't PTC make train control easier, cheaper and better compared to klutzy cab signal + train speed control/train stop? How about using ECP as the backbone to do real time car health monitoring?
Let's say you were doing Chicago to Cleveland and the design is for a half dozen passenger trains a day, each way. The current route has a 4 track wide ROW, is fairly straight and flat and is currently double track, class IV, with near capacity freight traffic on it. Couldn't you plop down a single, 110 mph class VI track, offset as far as possible from the freight track, put in crossovers every 20 miles or so and allow the passenger trains to use the freight track for meets, track failure and maintenance detours, etc?
If so, then allow limited us by the freight carrier with pircing structure and operating restrictions ala the NEC during the off-peak periods? It would at least allow the frt carrier the option of thinking about marketing a premium intermodal product using premium equipment that would be easy on the track structure.
But Oltmannd, you are dealing with equipment both freight and passenger, that fit the old technical pattern in tandem. When you get to really high speed passenger rail, you enter new technologies which are not necessarily compatable with contemporary freight...tri levels, oversized tanks and hoppers, etc. The question then becomes "can there be high speed rail freight?" which sets off in a new direction.
Don, if you re-read above, I was talking about 90-plus, not 79-90. Like I said above, the track people feel there is a break point at 90. I haven't spent 30-plus years in track like they have, so if they are wrong, I won't be the one to argue it. I'm just reporting what they say. I "take sides" only in the sense that I don't try and upend the entire industry on my own say-so.
Some comments:
Amen! Pass the marshmallows.
HarveyK400 If we're going to spend all this public money, lets get the biggest bang for the buck we can. Amen! Pass the marshmallows.
WIth this kind of mixed traffic the biggest bang might be a catastrophic collision! Hold the marshmallows.
Railway ManDon, if you re-read above, I was talking about 90-plus, not 79-90. Like I said above, the track people feel there is a break point at 90. I haven't spent 30-plus years in track like they have, so if they are wrong, I won't be the one to argue it. I'm just reporting what they say. I "take sides" only in the sense that I don't try and upend the entire industry on my own say-so.Some comments:Note that many of the places where 90 mph occurs, the freight traffic is either minimal or nonexistant.Most of the Class 1s not only have no experience with Class 6 track, they don't even own any machines that will work to Class 6. Who other than Amtrak is maintaining to Class 6 at present?PTC is a whole lot better than ATS/ATC in many ways, but it will actually cost capacity, and loss of capacity will result in loss of operating flexibility.I agree there's no real problem with using the freight main to make your passenger train meets on (we're studying that in a couple of corridors for more than a year). But unless the FRA grants a waiver permitting non-compliant vehicles on PTC-equipped lines, we'll be stuck with heavy vehicles and their poor performance. On the other hand, the last mile problems will be more important in determining whether there's mixed freight/passenger on these lines. For what it's worth, our most recent conversations with the FRA in D.C. concerning a compliance waiver didn't fill me with enthusisasm.It will be interesting to see which freight carriers would want to use the passenger track during off-peak hours and accept the liability for damaging the track/delaying the passenger trains. I think maybe one, maybe two of the carriers would be able to find a business model for that. RWM
First, I was on the Southwest Limited that I clocked at 100 west of Fort Madison in ATS territory making up time lost for a crossing collision involving Metra. I think you'll agree that this is not a low-volume freight line; yet the ride was comfortable without too much lean on curves. Yes, this is anecdotal and not routine; but it was, at the same time, a pleasant surprise demonstrating that it can be done on lines with 40-60 freights a day.
A North Western official told me they surface and line to better than Class VI because it takes longer to degrade to Class V, and track equipment used here is the same stuff in Europe; so I really question your statement about not having the capability which is distinguished from maintaining.
Frankly, I don't understand how PTC would reduce capacity without the implication that rules are more easily stretched without it. One of the advantages of PTC is to guide safe and effective train handling. I have some experience with signaling issues; and this seems like a myth being spread, posturing, to obstruct adoption.
Granted, existing compliant equipment is heavy and inherently less energy-efficient, but it's the load factors that really kill the psgr-mi/gal and psgr/crew.
With shared facilities and a more or less dedicated passenger track, there is a capability to run around a disabled train - regardless of it being a freight or passenger.
An advantage of shared routes is that the cost of infrastructure improvements, especially crossing grade separation, is minimized.
HarveyK400First, I was on the Southwest Limited that I clocked at 100 west of Fort Madison in ATS territory making up time lost for a crossing collision involving Metra. I think you'll agree that this is not a low-volume freight line; yet the ride was comfortable without too much lean on curves. Yes, this is anecdotal and not routine; but it was, at the same time, a pleasant surprise demonstrating that it can be done on lines with 40-60 freights a day. A North Western official told me they surface and line to better than Class VI because it takes longer to degrade to Class V, and track equipment used here is the same stuff in Europe; so I really question your statement about not having the capability which is distinguished from maintaining.Frankly, I don't understand how PTC would reduce capacity without the implication that rules are more easily stretched without it. One of the advantages of PTC is to guide safe and effective train handling. I have some experience with signaling issues; and this seems like a myth being spread, posturing, to obstruct adoption.Granted, existing compliant equipment is heavy and inherently less energy-efficient, but it's the load factors that really kill the psgr-mi/gal and psgr/crew. With shared facilities and a more or less dedicated passenger track, there is a capability to run around a disabled train - regardless of it being a freight or passenger.An advantage of shared routes is that the cost of infrastructure improvements, especially crossing grade separation, is minimized.
Harvey --This ride on Amtrak on BNSF was recent? In gross violation of FRA regulation and railway operating rules? Was it a regular, daily practice?
I don't know what North Western practices were. That company no longer exists. I do know what current practices and capabilities are re Class 6. If you want to think I am misinformed and too stubborn to admit it, think whatever you wish.
I don't take personal offense at your questioning me. I can't for the life of me think what your point is, other than to advance a vision, assert the technical capabilities exist to sustain that vision, and then push back against any information contrary to that assertion. I have no interest in winning arguments with you, nor do I have any interest in either denying or supporting your vision. I'm not worried if anyone else reading this forum is swayed or not swayed, nor worried if someone here will start believing the sky is orange and the moon made of cheese unless I type faster and with more use of bold and italics. If you want to scoff at my knowledge, mox nix to me.
The machines are not "the same" as in Europe. Some of them are built in Europe, some aren't. Some of the machines used in Europe are built in the U.S. Why not call up Nordco or Plasser or Harsco and ask them if you can spec the machine to get Class 6 or better, or if a given machine is even capable of Class 6? And ask them what each of the Class 1s buy? Have you ever done that? I've bought the machines!
If you would like me to explain how PTC reduces capacity, that information is free for the asking. If you're predisposed to disagree with me anyway as you think I and my cohorts are trying to be obstructionist, please let me know so I don't waste my time. (It's a bit funny to read in one sentence that I am using inside knowledge to be obstructionist and in the next that I don't have any inside knowledge.) My day job consists of arguing with people about rail policy, contracts, and economics from 0500 to 1800 and that fulfills all of my needs in that regard. Right now I am supposed to be working on PTC implementation strategy and finance documents, so I should get to work.
The UP North can get mildly rough between tie renewal and resurfacing every few years without freight traffic. The worse are the bounces at the non-ballasted deck bridges which are to be replaced in a road clearance/bridge replacement project.
The Northwest Line bridges were redone a few years ago in Chicago with concrete ties, deeper ballast, and 115# cwr track. When new, it was as smooth as glass; but the high track stiffness produced a louder ringing sound from the rolling wheels; but not as much as the NEC or the English 100 mph West Coast Main in 1974.
henry6But Oltmannd, you are dealing with equipment both freight and passenger, that fit the old technical pattern in tandem. When you get to really high speed passenger rail, you enter new technologies which are not necessarily compatable with contemporary freight...tri levels, oversized tanks and hoppers, etc.
Absolutely.
henry6 The question then becomes "can there be high speed rail freight?" which sets off in a new direction.
Probably not. The time value of even very high value goods is too low and the energy cost is too high volumes needed to make a train.
Railway Man Don, if you re-read above, I was talking about 90-plus, not 79-90. Like I said above, the track people feel there is a break point at 90. I haven't spent 30-plus years in track like they have, so if they are wrong, I won't be the one to argue it. I'm just reporting what they say. I "take sides" only in the sense that I don't try and upend the entire industry on my own say-so. Some comments: Note that many of the places where 90 mph occurs, the freight traffic is either minimal or nonexistant. Most of the Class 1s not only have no experience with Class 6 track, they don't even own any machines that will work to Class 6. Who other than Amtrak is maintaining to Class 6 at present? PTC is a whole lot better than ATS/ATC in many ways, but it will actually cost capacity, and loss of capacity will result in loss of operating flexibility. I agree there's no real problem with using the freight main to make your passenger train meets on (we're studying that in a couple of corridors for more than a year). But unless the FRA grants a waiver permitting non-compliant vehicles on PTC-equipped lines, we'll be stuck with heavy vehicles and their poor performance. On the other hand, the last mile problems will be more important in determining whether there's mixed freight/passenger on these lines. For what it's worth, our most recent conversations with the FRA in D.C. concerning a compliance waiver didn't fill me with enthusisasm. It will be interesting to see which freight carriers would want to use the passenger track during off-peak hours and accept the liability for damaging the track/delaying the passenger trains. I think maybe one, maybe two of the carriers would be able to find a business model for that. RWM
Thanks. It will be interesting. I hope the "always" and "never" folk don't kill it for the "lets try this" folk.
Amazingly enough, I think the "let's try this" folks are winning -- at least at the Class 1. I wouldn't have bet on that a couple of years ago. The irony is that the D.C. agencies, the high-speed authorities, and the states for the most part are way behind the curve. That's where I am getting all the push-back from.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.