The January Phillips column pointed this out in the PNRP:
"Going forward, PTC, in combination with other technologies and strategies, can offer levels of passenger protection that can be incorporated into new equipment design standards." page 26, PNRP.
Phillips says this technology means the FRA will be able to drop the overly heavy construction standards for passenger cars and move toward the lighter Euro/Japanese designs standards.
What, if anything real, does this really mean? Could our passenger stock be lighter weight and thus perform at higher speeds more easily and cheaply?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
In effect, yes. In theory, yes. But will North America give up on its heavy guage is another question. An Alstom VP several years ago told me several years ago there is a lot of technology being used around the world which cannot be used in the US because of how heavy and virtually overbuilt our equipment has to be. The idea Phillips alludes is that in Europe they work toward preventing accidents while in North America they work at making accidents safer. Could such thinking be overcome here?
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.
Phillips tells a couple of stories in regard to this issue. One was an unflattering nickname the French engineers had for the modified overweight test train that led to Acela. The other was how a TGV derailed at speed, but because of very strong solid connections between cars, they all stayed upright and aligned and nobody was killed.
A couple of stats to compare.
Spain's RENFE, the operator of its intercity service, latest model is a Seimans built train designated RENFE 103. Rather than power cars on each end, it uses a distributed power system in the same concept that was employed by Amtrak's Metro Liner. The 8800 HP train has seating capacity for 404 and a top speed of 217MPH.
The Acela motors generate 12,000 HP (6,000 at each end) carries 304 passengers at a top speed of 150MPH.
I have no technical knowledge that would let me asses the difference in power usage and costs, but these numbers seem to say something.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
To add to the previous, here in the US we seem to be fairly obsessed withthe idea that our vehicles of all types should survive any crash. If they weren't so pricey, some would probably own Abrams as a POV.
That does not seem to be a view that is shared by people in other parts of the world. On the other hand, in spite of the very large number of scooters I saw being used in Spain, I saw no riders without heavy duty head protection. Go figure.
I tried to find weight, etc., for comparisons. Couldn't find the weight for an 8 car Acela set but the similar, unpowered LCE cars weigh 113 tons each, so the 8 car Acela (2 end units heavier) must weigh in at more than 900 tons. By comparison, TGV's in France are 383 (empty) tons for an 8 car set with all cars powered. The ICE 3 trainsets in Germany are very similar to the Velaro sets Siemens built for Spain, 409 vs. 425 tons, both have 8 cars, all powered. No wonder it takes so much more horsepower to move that much mass.
Europeans work at prevention solutions as suggested by Phillips. They work at not having a crash rather than figuring out how to survive one. So if you follow Phillis' logic that if you install safeguards you decrease accidents. Without accidents you can lighten equipment, save energy, go faster, and use proven technologies (which are also less costly than reinventing the wheel.
Very true. I wonder if we'll move forward? I suspect there are many who would welcome a return to the real heavyweight coaches and pullmans of the 1940's.
schlimm Phillips tells a couple of stories in regard to this issue. One was an unflattering nickname the French engineers had for the modified overweight test train that led to Acela. The other was how a TGV derailed at speed, but because of very strong solid connections between cars, they all stayed upright and aligned and nobody was killed.
I don't know if I would characterize the connections between cars as very strong and solid. That seems to imply substantial structural strength. I recall an account attributing the stability of the train after derailing at around 180 mph to the body motion dampers in conjunction with the articulation. [The accident was caused by ground subsidence following an abandoned mine collapse.]
In any event, axle loads for VHST are kept under 17 tonnes (37,400 lbs), even for double-deckers.
Frontal impact strength of 500,000 lbs was given for one VHST; but I don't know if this is representative of the UIC standard.
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to read between those lines.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
You can think of the European/Asian approach as "preventing the accident" and the U.S. approach as "surviving the accident." Given the differences in use of the rail system between Europe/Asia and the U.S. as mentioned above, this divergence in approach is logical.
There's been lots, and lots, and lots, of talk about the FRA potentially relaxing its crashworthiness standards for lines with PTC installed. My own conversations with the FRA at a senior level about this matter have indicated only that the FRA has "heard" this talk, not that they have any intent to agree with all the people who think this is what the FRA ought to be doing. Given the FRA's DNA, and how the public does things in this country, I'm a little dismayed that this talk about what the FRA ought to be doing is even happening because it is more likely to concrete people inside and outside the Beltway into their existing positions than to incentive people to change their positions. I
t would be better if there was some actual science done before people leap to the conclusion that happens to be the answer they want to hear. Show me the comprehensive study that proves that safety goes up when vehicle strength goes down, and then you might have something worth talking about.
RWM
schlimm Very true. I wonder if we'll move forward? I suspect there are many who would welcome a return to the real heavyweight coaches and pullmans of the 1940's.
Johnny
Railway Man I t would be better if there was some actual science done before people leap to the conclusion that happens to be the answer they want to hear. Show me the comprehensive study that proves that safety goes up when vehicle strength goes down, and then you might have something worth talking about.
I
I don't think that is what they are saying. I don't know how the Euro/Japanese systems work but the evidence is out there in actual mileage experience - safe and lighter. I don't see the need to reinvent the wheel. Perhaps if we can separate freight from most passenger, we could proceed with major passenger improvements at a much cheaper price.
DeggestyIf the equipment is lighter, is it easier to maintain the track properly?
One would think so, just as highways. As the capacity of freight cars and trucks has multiplied, so has the damage to roadbed/roads.
Railway Man You can think of the European/Asian approach as "preventing the accident" and the U.S. approach as "surviving the accident." Given the differences in use of the rail system between Europe/Asia and the U.S. as mentioned above, this divergence in approach is logical. There's been lots, and lots, and lots, of talk about the FRA potentially relaxing its crashworthiness standards for lines with PTC installed. My own conversations with the FRA at a senior level about this matter have indicated only that the FRA has "heard" this talk, not that they have any intent to agree with all the people who think this is what the FRA ought to be doing. Given the FRA's DNA, and how the public does things in this country, I'm a little dismayed that this talk about what the FRA ought to be doing is even happening because it is more likely to concrete people inside and outside the Beltway into their existing positions than to incentive people to change their positions. I t would be better if there was some actual science done before people leap to the conclusion that happens to be the answer they want to hear. Show me the comprehensive study that proves that safety goes up when vehicle strength goes down, and then you might have something worth talking about. RWM
So, without bringing in the crash dummies, who knows for sure.
It's obvious that running high speed passenger service on lines without freight trains takes away the possibility of a collision between the two types, I don't think it is necessarily a big factor in the design of the European high speed lines. Rather the lines are purpose built just for the much lighter and faster passenger trains and no doubt are less expensive to build and maintain than for dual purpose lines. I rode a high speed line in Spain running north of Madrid that will eventually extend to a connection with a French line. The trip took us through a 17 mile long dual bore tunnel through a ridge of mountains north of Madrid. I could be wrong, but I do not think the tunnel clearances would allow their freight cars through, let alone the freight cars we use on the North American railroads.
Also thinking about of the cost of purpose built lines, I believe that the signaling, wayside or PTC type, becomes less complicated and perhaps less expensive when not trying to deal with the differences in the train weight/stopping distance factors.
As for maintenance, in a previous thread Railway Man indicated that running one US freight train over tracks built to highest speed specs, Class 9? would likely knock the track out of tolerance.
I really hate to bring this up again but I think that one of the reasons for the heavier weight and crashworthiness of North American passenger equipment is the litigious nature of American society.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? This may be part, but only part, of the problem. Heavy loading guage for heavy hauling led to heavier and heavier equipment for both carriage and protection. Less has been spent on preventing accidents (except in rapid transit, which can also be argued) with more efficient and complete signalling and track maintenance here than elsewhere.
schlimmCouldn't find the weight for an 8 car Acela set but the similar, unpowered LCE cars weigh 113 tons each, so the 8 car Acela (2 end units heavier) must weigh in at more than 900 tons.
Can't blame them for calling Acela a pig, but I don't think it's a 900-ton pig. Somewhere around 600, maybe?
http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/acela.html#trainset says 624 American tons.
timzschlimmCouldn't find the weight for an 8 car Acela set but the similar, unpowered LCE cars weigh 113 tons each, so the 8 car Acela (2 end units heavier) must weigh in at more than 900 tons. No idea what an LCE car is, but it probably doesn't weigh 113 tons? Can't blame them for calling Acela a pig, but I don't think it's a 900-ton pig. Somewhere around 600, maybe? http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/acela.html#trainset says 624 American tons.
My error. I meant the LRC cars, which were the basis for the cars on the Acela and I had gotten the power car weights in error. From the Trainweb site, if you add up the individual car weights for an Acela as configured, it comes to 688 tons. Checking at the Bombardier corporate site, it says the Bombardier/Siemens ICE 3's (409 tons) also have 8 cars, all powered, and can carry 416 passengers at up to 330 kmh. maximum, compared to Acela's 304 passengers at 264 kmh. max. The corporate site doesn't give weights, unfortunately.
schlimm From the Trainweb site, if you add up the individual car weights for an Acela as configured, it comes to 688 tons.
2 x 204,000
4 x 139,000
1 x 137,000
1 x 142,000
total 1243000 lb.
As long as passenger trains in the US share the tracks with freight the construction standards will not be eased...with or without PTC.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
I suspect, as much as the weight, the need to accelerate to 150 mph in less than 10 miles had something to do with the need for more power. You're covering better than two miles a minute at the top end, so those ten miles are reeled of pretty quickly.
Is that a prediction or an insider statement?
BaltACDAs long as passenger trains in the US share the tracks with freight the construction standards will not be eased...with or without PTC.
I don't deny "Old School" thinking may prevail without any compelling evidence to support it; but what did the current strength standards do to prevent deaths at Chatsworth or at 47th St? Would PTC, or even cab signals, more likely prevent such outcomes?
HarveyK400BaltACDAs long as passenger trains in the US share the tracks with freight the construction standards will not be eased...with or without PTC.I don't deny "Old School" thinking may prevail without any compelling evidence to support it; but what did the current strength standards do to prevent deaths at Chatsworth or at 47th St? Would PTC, or even cab signals, more likely prevent such outcomes?
Nothing is guaranteed to prevent deaths. Very likely the toll would have been far higher with less robust construction The reality is that we tend to forget, or never hear about, the other train accidents where no passengers were killed.
John
These accounts (from the dreaded Wikipedia) of accidents on the HSR's in France give some sense of how their coaches allow for good survivability and that they have had accidents at level crossings and are eliminating them.
Following the number of accidents at level crossings, an effort has been made to remove all level crossings on lignes classiques used by TGVs. The ligne classique from Tours to Bordeaux at the end of the LGV Atlantique has no level crossings as a result.
What about the Talgo equipment on Amtrak Cascades, the lightweight Turboliner and Turbotrain sets, and others? I thought they were more lightweight. Even more lightweight trains were used before Amtrak/Conrail and were considered failures partially due to "ride quality" among other things.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.