BaltACD Deggesty Rob, was NS really involved in the matter? The train was on CSX track all the way from the Potomac to Florida., was it not? d Amtrak was notified of the defect on the car (excessive tread build up on a wheel from sticking brakes). All handling of passengers on Amtrak trains is in the hands of Amtrak not the freight carrier involved.
Deggesty Rob, was NS really involved in the matter? The train was on CSX track all the way from the Potomac to Florida., was it not?
Rob, was NS really involved in the matter? The train was on CSX track all the way from the Potomac to Florida., was it not?
Amtrak was notified of the defect on the car (excessive tread build up on a wheel from sticking brakes). All handling of passengers on Amtrak trains is in the hands of Amtrak not the freight carrier involved.
Bad brake valve or handbrake left on. The latter is more common than the former.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Paul MilenkovicAlso, if this incident was a "frozen axle", Heritage cars are pretty much running the same style of roller bearings as the new equipment, no?
Yes! A bearing failure would have absolutely nothing to do with how old the carbody is....
Amtrak regularly herds passengers, with luggage' from one car to another in this corridor. In Washington Union station, cars are frequently cut off the rear of southbound trains, forcing passengers from rear cars to struggle, bags and children in tow, to relocate to forward seats. Did it yesterday. They do not instruct passengers to wait until all DC bound folks have left, they just stack up in the aisle. Amtrak 91 carries coach attendants as well as the usual full crew, plenty of personnel to coordinate an orderly evacuation, even if a couple of shuttles were required. This was not a catastrophic weather event or derailment. 14 hours is unacceptable.
rfpjohn 14 hours 3 miles out. Didn't it occur to anyone that maybe the Amtrak traveling public is interested in getting to their destination in a timely fashion? Herd the passengers into the cars ahead of the defect, make a cut and get these people to Greendale for alternate transportation, buses/extra cars on 97, whatever. Have we lost our ability to think? Fire everybody!
14 hours 3 miles out. Didn't it occur to anyone that maybe the Amtrak traveling public is interested in getting to their destination in a timely fashion? Herd the passengers into the cars ahead of the defect, make a cut and get these people to Greendale for alternate transportation, buses/extra cars on 97, whatever. Have we lost our ability to think? Fire everybody!
Sorry, but what you suggested is the stupid decision. There's simply not enough space. I'd also wager there are maximum capacities in those cars. You're asking for colossal legal issues if something went wrong in that scenario.
And yes, they think. They know their procedures and followed it. They know that they're trying to get people there in a timely fashion. So does Asiana Airlines. Things go wrong and you have to deal with it, both as a business and a customer.
We can always look on the bright side. For the first time in how many years a passenger can arrive after a good night's sleep into south florida early in the morning. on a train. First 2 night train on the east coast in decades. Last ones were from midwest ??
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Definitely not NS. THIS is CSX in all it's glory.
Johnny
Having recently sat out a three hour delay in Cleveland due to a loose brake rotor on a heritage baggage car the real issue is that Amtrak has never had a funding source that will work for regular equipment replacement. The average fleet age is now older than it was in 1975. Consider the following ages:
Heritage: minimum 50 years old (baggage cars converted from UP coaches) Oldest 65 years
Amfleet I: age 36-40 years. Metroliner cab cars 46-47 years
Amfleet II: 37 years
Superliner I: 34-35 years
Viewliner: 18 years
Superliner II: 17 years
Horizon: 20 or so years
California 20 years
Acela 13 years
Amtrak and NS scrambled quite well to determine the problem with the car and get it off the train.
Sam1 I'll read the articles. Pop quizzes, however, are off my plate. Too old for that stuff anymore.
I'll read the articles. Pop quizzes, however, are off my plate. Too old for that stuff anymore.
No pop quizes, but your writings suggest that you are one of the more frequent patrons of Amtrak service.
Any reports as to bad riding where some cars in the consist are fine but one or other cars are bucking and bouncing would be a most useful engineering observation. And if ride quality can be connected to the type of equipment -- Heritage, Amfleet, Superliner I, Superliner II, Viewliner, or Horizon would make such observations of the highest value.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Mr. Milenkovic,
Thanks for your excellent explanation and references. My brother is an electrical engineer. I have great respect for engineers. Most of the engineers that I have known have made the world a better place to live. Most importantly, however, they take ownership of what they design and the outcomes. If things don't work out, they fix it.
If I were a young person today, I would enroll in the civil engineering program with a railroad option at the Altoona campus of Penn State.
schlimm This is the consequence of continuing to run LD trains with antique dining cars "for the experience" that some hold so dear. To most folks, this in an example of the stupidity at Amtrak.
This is the consequence of continuing to run LD trains with antique dining cars "for the experience" that some hold so dear. To most folks, this in an example of the stupidity at Amtrak.
Is this the stupidity of the people who don't want Amtrak to purchase new dining cars? Or the stupidity of the people who think that an Amcoach could be turned into a dining car? Or the stupidity of Amtrak for running dining cars when it requires Heritage equipment and that Amtrak should forgo dining cars as a relic of times past? I am confused as to who is being stupid.
Also, if this incident was a "frozen axle", Heritage cars are pretty much running the same style of roller bearings as the new equipment, no?
BaltACD Sam1 NorthWest Are you referring to the Superliners, Sam1? All Superliner Is were built by Pullman Standard with a German truck design. The German design had an air bag suspension that was replaced with springs. The Superliner IIs have a GSC truck that is also used on the Horizon and Viewliner cars. They were built by Bombardier. There are both Is and IIs of all types, IIRC. Superliner I: http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=1464714 Superliner II: http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=560739 The pictures capture the different designs. Why are they different? What is the advantage or disadvantage of one vs. another? Why are they different? If you give 10 engineers a problem to solve, you will get 10 different solutions - with each engineer claiming his is the best. Continuing commercial use defines the benefits and detriments of each design.
Sam1 NorthWest Are you referring to the Superliners, Sam1? All Superliner Is were built by Pullman Standard with a German truck design. The German design had an air bag suspension that was replaced with springs. The Superliner IIs have a GSC truck that is also used on the Horizon and Viewliner cars. They were built by Bombardier. There are both Is and IIs of all types, IIRC. Superliner I: http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=1464714 Superliner II: http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=560739 The pictures capture the different designs. Why are they different? What is the advantage or disadvantage of one vs. another?
NorthWest Are you referring to the Superliners, Sam1? All Superliner Is were built by Pullman Standard with a German truck design. The German design had an air bag suspension that was replaced with springs. The Superliner IIs have a GSC truck that is also used on the Horizon and Viewliner cars. They were built by Bombardier. There are both Is and IIs of all types, IIRC. Superliner I: http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=1464714 Superliner II: http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=560739
Are you referring to the Superliners, Sam1? All Superliner Is were built by Pullman Standard with a German truck design. The German design had an air bag suspension that was replaced with springs. The Superliner IIs have a GSC truck that is also used on the Horizon and Viewliner cars. They were built by Bombardier. There are both Is and IIs of all types, IIRC.
Superliner I: http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=1464714
Superliner II: http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=560739
The pictures capture the different designs. Why are they different? What is the advantage or disadvantage of one vs. another?
Why are they different? If you give 10 engineers a problem to solve, you will get 10 different solutions - with each engineer claiming his is the best. Continuing commercial use defines the benefits and detriments of each design.
Your reading assignment is "How Bogies Work" by Isao Okamoto at http://www.jrtr.net/jrtr18/pdf/f52_technology.pdf. There will be a short quiz at the end of this week . . .
The engineers know what they are doing; it is the operations people with the continued commercial use who purport to know the benefits and detriments of each design who are often not familiar with the science behind it all.
So, why does Honda use a "double wishbone" suspension whereas Toyota uses Macpherson strut? With the car suspensions, there are different engineering trades between ride quality, handling, packaging of how the suspension fits in the available space, cost of servicing, and cost of manufacture. One size does not fit all.
The engineers also (by now) know what they are doing. Most often the decisions are made by "the suits" -- the "new" Ford Taurus in 1996 was supposed to get the Honda style "double wishbone" known for good handling, but the suits didn't want to alienate their (old fogey Ford buyer) customer base with a radical departure from the handling in the car they had before. The engineer also had a design for a side mirror with much less wind noise that got nixed by the higher ups for the same reason.
You really think the railroad mechanical people know the ins and outs of what works and what is a newfangled gimmick from the engineering people? Poppa who worked at GATX and designed the static railcar test stand at Pueblo, Colorado, told me that officials at the Pennsylvania Railroad, you know, The Standard Railroad of the World rejected the manufacturer's design for the truck on the Metroliner (that would be the Budd Company) and insisted on a GSC-style truck. The gol' durn Metroliner rode like a Ford F-150, and yes, I have ridden in each of them.
Do you suppose, forum member who ride long distance trains could check into this as I don't ride trains as I simply don't have time to go anyplace because I am busy looking after . . . (sorry, one of our regulars takes offense with mixing in personal back story, but I really don't ride Amtrak because I simply don't have the time on this stage of my life to go on train trips, and people who do ride Amtrak regularly could look into this).
My theory is that those "rough sections of track" many Amtrak riders complain about are really (poorly) maintained train cars or perhaps the performance differential of different truck designs. C'mon people, I have more than once given out this "homework assignment", and what I ask is simple enough to do but no one does this and reports back. If you are on a rough riding train car, what kind is it -- Superliner I, Superliner II, Viewliner, Horizon, Amfleet? And can you walk to a different train car in the consist and then back to your car and note if one car is riding better than another, especially if you have a mixed consist?
And the engineers do know what they are talking about, and the research engineering on this topic goes back to the steam locomotive days and papers by Carter in England from the 20's and 30's.
What I know about ride quality is that a single axle is "kinematically unstable" --- it "noses" or "hunts" back and forth (am I rambling to the consternation of one of our forum members by covering too many topics in one post?). What I gather from reading the engineering literature is that if you place two or more axles in a rigid frame that the wheels will first "creep" but then outright slip to make up the difference from them not all being in a "radial" direction -- this is especially true for a steam locomotive driver set with a long, rigid wheelbase.
For purposes of the engineering analysis, you can treat the rigid wheel base on a steam locomotive as a single axle, and I think this accounts for the poor tracking of 0-6-0, 0-8-0 locomotives for anything above 20 MPH and the poor ride of the GM Aerotrain from the 50's.
What the steam locomotives designers eventually figures out is that not only did you need guide wheel for high speed operation, you needed springs controlling the deflection of those guide wheels. The combination of more than one "effective" wheel set together with the constraining springs raised the "critical speed." Most of this "back in the day" was determined by trial and error, but recently some research engineers analyzed the German 05 locomotive in this regard http://www.simpack.com/fileadmin/simpack/doc/newsletter/2009/SN-1-June2009_The_Hunting-Stability_of_the_German_High-Speed-Steam-Locomotive-05.pdf. Springs constraining truck rotation also played a roll in the Japanese "Shinkansen" high speed operation.
What about rail cars or locomotives with paired trucks (called "bogies" everywhere else in the world)? The 4-wheel (2-axle) freight car is a kind of European standard that is noted for limited speed capability. Some time in the 1960's, research engineers in England did a scientific study of this type of rail car and determined optimal levels of spring contraining the tendency of the axles to seek the radial direction in relation to the rails. The result was a much higher speed freight car; the research also addressed some bad "hunting" reported on the Mark I coaches and improved the design on the Mark III known as the HST or the InterCity 125.
If we leave out "the exotics" such as Talgo and radial-steer trucks, either forced steer as developed by the Swiss SIG compane or self-steer as on the EMD radial locomotive truck, I think one option is to have a very "stiff" truck with regard to radial steering, just like the rigid wheelbase on a steam locomotive, and you take a penalty in tread wear, just like on a steam locomotive. Each truck then acts like a single axle, and then you have to place the "right" spring rate to constrain the tracking of each truck, making an effective high-speed two-axle design as in the work in England.
The other possiblity is allowing compliance (engineer-talk for springy-ness) in the axle boxes of the truck -- just the right amount -- to allow the truck to steer as a two-axle vehicle. The different truck designs are efforts to control the compliance in the axle box, both as originally built and after some deterioration has taken place with wear in use.
The best durn railroad equipment I ever rode on were those French Turboliners. Continuing commercial use defining the benefits and detriments of each design? Not by Amtrak as far as I could tell. My impression was that Amfleet (the "exotic" Pioneer III truck) was better than anything else made state-side, but the Turboliner was by far, far the best, and this was back in the late 1970's, a time when track wasn't well maintained all around.
I suppose you are going to tell me the Turboliners like everything else brought in from overseas (the AEM-7's?) "didn't meet the needs of U.S. operating practice and maintenance conditions" (their trucks?) But maybe I am now agreeing with the contingent that "the US is falling behind in railroad technology" because we are using GSC trucks "just because" instead of superior designs in use in different parts of the world.
OK, OK, I will wrap up this rap and ramble. That bar Sam1 talks about is a "drop equalizer" and it is part of the primary suspension of the truck (i.e. bogie) -- that equalizer connects both axle boxes on one side to the primary springs. The secondary springs are those big massive things connected to the pivoting "bolster" through "spring hangers", that take up some of the rough ride from incipient hunting. If you had a proper truck design, you probably wouldn't need such "lateral motion", and claims are made that the Pennsy T-1 steam locomotive rode "like a Pullman" in excess of 125 MPH without swing hangers. The axle is guided by the axle box sliding in the "pedestal", and that part can wear (Don Oltmann tells me that there are these things called Franklin wedges that can take up that slack). When those trucks wear and the axles develop more wiggle, a bad ride is guaranteed.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
My guess is that the air suspensions on the Is didn't work very well, as this picture: http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=179674&nseq=8 shows that by 1989 the air bags were replaced with springs.
So, the IIs were built with a more traditional truck (also used on the Metroliner EMUs).
So that is my guess. It may be inaccurate.
NW
Seeing the picture of Number 91 pulling into Staples Street Station reminded me of a question that I have been meaning to ask.
The trucks on the sleepers have a wide bar on the outside of them and stretch from one axle to the other. The bar starts at the axle, dips downward, then is parallel to the car body until it reaches the other axle, where it rises and attaches to the axle. Or it seems to be attached to the axle or axle housing. This is the same truck that I see on the transition sleeper, as well as some of the other sleepers, on the Texas Eagle.
The coach cars don't have this type of truck. This is also true of the coaches on the Eagle and, if memory serves me correctly, the dinning and lounge cars.
What is the difference between the two trucks? And why is it important?
Report that a heritage dining car's axel froze up stalling train 14 hrs 3 miles north of Richmond's Staples Mill rd.station
http://www.wafb.com/story/22779975/amtrak-passengers-free-after-being-stuck-for-14-hours
was train #91
http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/local/amtrak-from-d-c-arrives-nearly-hours-late/article_2774aa4a-e7c1-11e2-8e86-001a4bcf6878.html
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.