The BNSF line in the Pacific Northwest does, IMO have sharp curves and it does make logical sense to use tilt train technology there. Not convinced the Talgo is the best but the Spanish have the most experience with the design and thats why they were initially selected. I do not personally like the design because.
1. Sits too low to the rails.
2. Cars are two short and only have two axles each, to me I think this puts a maximum speed on it's use but I am not an engineer.
3. Not confident they fully meet crash standards or have been tested fully in that respect.
4. German and French designs I think are superior. Frankly I would like to see an American design and I don't think we are that far away from one.
CMStPnP Super Steel is in Milwaukee and also stated it wanted the contract and would assemble the cars in Wisconsin. As you may or may not know, Super Steel already has railroad assembly experience in that it assembles hoods for EMD or used to. Additionially, Milwaukee already had resident and some residual railcar building experience there as thats where the Milwaukee Road built and rebuilt the Hiawatha Passenger Cars. Significant tooling from that operation was purchased by Northern Railcar Co. Not sure if they are still in business or if they were a bidder.
Super Steel is in Milwaukee and also stated it wanted the contract and would assemble the cars in Wisconsin. As you may or may not know, Super Steel already has railroad assembly experience in that it assembles hoods for EMD or used to.
Additionially, Milwaukee already had resident and some residual railcar building experience there as thats where the Milwaukee Road built and rebuilt the Hiawatha Passenger Cars. Significant tooling from that operation was purchased by Northern Railcar Co. Not sure if they are still in business or if they were a bidder.
Sorry, but you are really grasping at straws there. The fact is that Talgo manufactures passenger rail cars now, not 50+ years ago. And assembling an EMD diesel hood sometime is hardly the same. And you know it.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm CMStPnP Super Steel is in Milwaukee and also stated it wanted the contract and would assemble the cars in Wisconsin. As you may or may not know, Super Steel already has railroad assembly experience in that it assembles hoods for EMD or used to. Additionially, Milwaukee already had resident and some residual railcar building experience there as thats where the Milwaukee Road built and rebuilt the Hiawatha Passenger Cars. Significant tooling from that operation was purchased by Northern Railcar Co. Not sure if they are still in business or if they were a bidder. Sorry, but you are really grasping at straws there. The fact is that Talgo manufactures passenger rail cars now, not 50+ years ago. And assembling an EMD diesel hood sometime is hardly the same. And you know it.
Super Steel has been assembling Metra passenger cars for the last 14 years.
http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/stories/2000/12/25/story1.html?page=all
An "expensive model collector"
There is a substantial difference in assembling cars from somebody else's design (St. Louis Car with PCC's) and building from your own design (Bombardier/Alstom with Acela). I'm not sure that Super Steel has a design and engineering staff that could have bid on Wisconsin's offer with its own design proposal.
CSSHEGEWISCH There is a substantial difference in assembling cars from somebody else's design (St. Louis Car with PCC's) and building from your own design (Bombardier/Alstom with Acela). I'm not sure that Super Steel has a design and engineering staff that could have bid on Wisconsin's offer with its own design proposal.
OK, I guess it is time for me to weight in on this (and then duck).
There were a total of 4 Wisconsin Talgo trainsets. A train set is not something you set up as a not-permanent model train layout but rather a synonym for a fixed consist of passenger equipment, especially since the Talgo is articulated and requires shop work to add or remove cars.
Of these Talgos, 2 trainsets were ordered by then Governor Doyle, yeah, yeah, on a no-bid contract on Administrative authority without a special action of the Legislature. 2 more trainsets were ordered as part of the 840 million ARRA grant to Wisconsin (the Federal Stimulus for job creation) that was part of extending passenger service to Madison.
The reasoning behind Talgo, and no Jim Doyle didn't just select Talgo because of a "deal", there was a lot of deliberation on this "down in the trenches" of WisDOT on the best choice. The reasoning was that there was going to be a kind of passenger train renaissance for mid-speed service outside of high-level platform territory, the 110 MPH thing, for the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative and perhaps for similar multi-state regional passenger networks.
The idea was that with its (modest amount of passive tilt), platform-level boarding, suitability for 110 MPH operation, light weight and potential fuel saving, that Talgo was what everyone was going to want. To the extent that Governor Doyle jumped the gun ordering the first two Talgos out of WisDOT money, it was kind of like General Rommel exploiting the breach in the British lines and dashing ahead of his fuel supply for the tanks -- sometimes bold, risky action wins the battle.
The idea was that Wisconsin would get the Talgo factory, the whole U.S. would be buying Talgos in quantity, and the jobs would be in Milwaukee, etc., etc.. Criticize Rommel for losing the war, criticize Mr. Doyle for not running for reelection and the Governership tilting in an anti-train direction, but taking risks is one way to have a chance at big gains.
So what has happened Talgo wise is not that the general outlines of the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative are not getting built. It is getting built only it is leaving out Wisconsin and Ohio owing to the election of anti-train governors. Now before everyone gets on a tear around here about anti-train political leaders, thems the breaks, there is a political process, the people get heard, and the first person to suggest there are political conspiracies gets shipped off to Ukraine to stand between the two sides shooting at each other.
But there is more to it than that. It turns out that the everyone-else-besides Wisconsin and Ohio version of the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative is turning to a bi-level car, very similar to the Pacific Surfliner "California Cars" which is almost but not completely unlike an Amtrak Superliner.
You would think these bi-level cars are not high-speed, but I guess everything getting built these days is getting qualified for 125 MPH anyway. You would think the absence of tilt is a problem, but Talgo does not provide that much tilt compensation anyway, say, compared to a Pendolino train, but ask me how you could mod the suspension on a conventional passenger truck to get a small amount of tilt that may help. You could say the bi-levels are not light weight, but when they have 3 times the floor space of one of the shorty Talgo cars, maybe they are only modestly heavier per seat. You could say the Talgo has the low floor throughout the consist with respect to speed of boarding and ADA access -- I guess the bi-level restricts wheelchair patrons to the lower level?
But the biggy is platform length. The ridership on these regional trains is burgeoning (10-dollar word for increasing), and maybe Governor Doyle's Talgos would have filled up at some point, and then what? And the other thing is yes, there are Talgo models with that guided-axle weirdness qualified up to HSR speeds, yes the Wisconsin Talgo met some kind of FRA requirement that may have included a little bit of waivering, no, the Talgos can't be switched to break up a train set, this needs the shop, but you can do it, but the articulated connection is reasoned to be safer because in a wreck the consist stays together, which was a factor in the State of Washington waiver for an earlier, less FRA compliant Talgo.
And also Beech Grove wouldn't know what to do with a Talgo train set even if Talgo let them get their hands on one, which they don't. Part of the Talgo companies "deal" in the aftermath of the 1950's failure of Talgo in the U.S. is you don't just buy a train, you buy the train set plus the maintenance contract in a Talgo approved facility. Kinda like having to take your car to "the dealer" for service instead of going to your tire guy or local mechanic.
I know you want to paint horns on the anti-train Governor Walker, but I believed he wanted to pay the maintenance contract to put at least 2 Talgos on the Milwaukee-Chicago trains, that he states that he supports, that he is not anti-train but anti-train-service-to-Madison that he felt didn't justify the near billion plus the state being on the hook for operations. It is just that there are folks (can you believe it) in the Legislature who are hard-core anti-train and didn't want this.
So whatever the merits of Talgo vs California Car, that train has appeared to leave the station. What 'we are getting" for regional service up to 125-per outside the NEC in low-level platform territory is the California Car. From an engineering standpoint, it isn't as interesting as a Talgo, and as an HO (on other scales) modeler, the short articulated Talgo cars look neat snaking around a small layout using working guided-axle linkages, but the powers that be have made a different decision, and in retrospect, it is probably sensible to run regional service up to 125 MPH with California-type bi-levels.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Thanks for the clarification, Paul!!
schlimm Sorry, but you are really grasping at straws there. The fact is that Talgo manufactures passenger rail cars now, not 50+ years ago. And assembling an EMD diesel hood sometime is hardly the same. And you know it.
See I know you were not trying to be funny but the Talgos were delievered as modular kits and were assembled on the bare factory floor of Tower Automotive. Maybe you saw some skills there I missed.
I'll bet you good money there are more passenger car building skills at Northern Railcar than at any Talgo Plant in the United States. No way would I call a Talgo factory worker from Milwaukee "skilled".
Also, I try not to politicize but you bought the political line in this story from one side, hook, line and sinker. Then apparently get angry when I point it out. I'm trying to be fair in looking at the other side of the argument.
Anti-Train vs Pro-Train, I buy into that somewhat since Lowell Jackson was probably the biggest anti-rail bigot in Wisconsins History. I am not convinced the Walker administration was anti-train, rather I think they were more "make a business case for the spending and we will look at it". Thats what was done with the Chicago Milwaukee service and why the Walker administration has spent money there. It was not done with the Madison service. Not sure why they did not go with a scaled down proposal and use Wisconsin and Southern train to Milwaukee once or twice a day. They can operate Madison - Milwaukee on this HSR route with current operating agreements and trackage rights. Just need to rebuild the tracks.
Paul MilenkovicBut there is more to it than that. It turns out that the everyone-else-besides Wisconsin and Ohio version of the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative is turning to a bi-level car, very similar to the Pacific Surfliner "California Cars" which is almost but not completely unlike an Amtrak Superliner.
These cars (other than the doors) were actually completely based on the Superliner design, itself based on the 1950s El Capitan cars, right?: " Amtrak's Superliner was used as the design baseline for the California Car, but several changes were made to the design to make the car more suitable for corridor services with frequent stops." I have looked around but there seems to be no evidence the cars were ever tested above 90mph up to 125mph. Talgos, the TGV, ICE etc. are low slung on purpose for a variety of reasons (among them that the tilt doesn't work well on tall cars, and the tilt is meant to overcome the nausea that comes with the car leaning outside of a curve), and I doubt the bi-level cars would be suitable above 90mph for that reason, though I have seen no evidence either way.
CMStPnP schlimm Sorry, but you are really grasping at straws there. The fact is that Talgo manufactures passenger rail cars now, not 50+ years ago. And assembling an EMD diesel hood sometime is hardly the same. And you know it. See I know you were not trying to be funny but the Talgos were delievered as modular kits and were assembled on the bare factory floor of Tower Automotive. Maybe you saw some skills there I missed. I'll bet you good money there are more passenger car building skills at Northern Railcar than at any Talgo Plant in the United States. No way would I call a Talgo factory worker from Milwaukee "skilled". Also, I try not to politicize but you bought the political line in this story from one side, hook, line and sinker. Then apparently get angry when I point it out. I'm trying to be fair in looking at the other side of the argument. Anti-Train vs Pro-Train, I buy into that somewhat since Lowell Jackson was probably the biggest anti-rail bigot in Wisconsins History. I am not convinced the Walker administration was anti-train, rather I think they were more "make a business case for the spending and we will look at it". Thats what was done with the Chicago Milwaukee service and why the Walker administration has spent money there. It was not done with the Madison service. Not sure why they did not go with a scaled down proposal and use Wisconsin and Southern train to Milwaukee once or twice a day. They can operate Madison - Milwaukee on this HSR route with current operating agreements and trackage rights. Just need to rebuild the tracks.
If there were other builders capable of building the trains, why didn't they respond to the RFP? If they felt the process was rigged to select only one builder, where is their protests? For the state to not want what they were selling isn't sufficient. Did any of the few domestic builders (Siemens, CAF, etc) ever complain? Otherwise you are just pulling your conspiracy theory out of somewhere unmentionable.
DwightBranch If there were other builders capable of building the trains, why didn't they respond to the RFP? If they felt the process was rigged to select only one builder, where is their protests? For the state to not want what they were selling isn't sufficient. Did any of the few domestic builders (Siemens, CAF, etc) ever complain? Otherwise you are just pulling your conspiracy theory out of somewhere unmentionable.
DwightBranch Talgos, the TGV, ICE etc. are low slung on purpose for a variety of reasons (among them that the tilt doesn't work well on tall cars, and the tilt is meant to overcome the nausea that comes with the car leaning outside of a curve), and I doubt the bi-level cars would be suitable above 90mph for that reason, though I have seen no evidence either way.
Talgos, the TGV, ICE etc. are low slung on purpose for a variety of reasons (among them that the tilt doesn't work well on tall cars, and the tilt is meant to overcome the nausea that comes with the car leaning outside of a curve), and I doubt the bi-level cars would be suitable above 90mph for that reason, though I have seen no evidence either way.
Talgos have a passive tilting system and are definitely low-slung.
TGV and ICE have no tilting mechanism, passive or active, and are built to the normal passenger profile. Nothing low-slung there. There is even a double deck version of the TGV, that in testing set a record at 357mph. Normal service speed is slower, more around 180mph.
Double deck passenger cars are very common in Europe and regularly travel at speeds around 100mph in regional and local service. The Bombardier TWINDEXX intercity train has a top speed of 230km/h (143mph) and is double deck. So there's nothing inherently that prevents double deck cars from reaching respectable speeds. And I see no reason why the cars now being built for Midwest service won't run at up to 125mph.
CJtrainguy Double deck passenger cars are very common in Europe and regularly travel at speeds around 100mph in regional and local service. The Bombardier TWINDEXX intercity train has a top speed of 230km/h (143mph) and is double deck. So there's nothing inherently that prevents double deck cars from reaching respectable speeds. And I see no reason why the cars now being built for Midwest service won't run at up to 125mph.
Possibly, depending on the route. I am not sure how one measures "degree of discomfort" for the passengers caused by lateral centrifugal forces and decides it is too much. Those responsible for purchasing the high speed trains on the Northeast Corridor decided those forces were too much for the passengers to take, and decided upon an active tilting design for the Acelas similar to the Swedish X 2000. I have seen and rode on the Talgo in Oregon, Talgo has a passive system in which when a train goes around a curve, and a gap opens wider between the cars on the outside of the curve than on the inside, that gap pulls on a lever between the cars and tilts the train into the curve rather than away from it, thus reducing those lateral centrifugal forces which passengers find nauseating. Until they actually run non-tilting tall cars at 125mph over the route in question with passengers on board I will be skeptical that you are right and the Acela engineers were wrong.
CJtrainguy TGV and ICE have no tilting mechanism, passive or active, and are built to the normal passenger profile. Nothing low-slung there. There is even a double deck version of the TGV, that in testing set a record at 357mph. Normal service speed is slower, more around 180mph. Double deck passenger cars are very common in Europe and regularly travel at speeds around 100mph in regional and local service. The Bombardier TWINDEXX intercity train has a top speed of 230km/h (143mph) and is double deck. So there's nothing inherently that prevents double deck cars from reaching respectable speeds. And I see no reason why the cars now being built for Midwest service won't run at up to 125mph.
Actually, there was an ICE-T type in Germany with a tilting mechanism especially good on some former curvy DR lines. Most Regional Express trains in Germany are double deck, locomotive hauled and reasonably comfortable, but it seems like their top speed is under 160 kmh. The TWINNDEX Express top speed is shown as 230 kmh, but other versions only 160 kmh or possibly 189 kmh. And it is for Switzerland and has a tilt/roll mechanism.
DwightBranch Paul MilenkovicBut there is more to it than that. It turns out that the everyone-else-besides Wisconsin and Ohio version of the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative is turning to a bi-level car, very similar to the Pacific Surfliner "California Cars" which is almost but not completely unlike an Amtrak Superliner. These cars (other than the doors) were actually completely based on the Superliner design, itself based on the 1950s El Capitan cars, right?: " Amtrak's Superliner was used as the design baseline for the California Car, but several changes were made to the design to make the car more suitable for corridor services with frequent stops." I have looked around but there seems to be no evidence the cars were ever tested above 90mph up to 125mph. Talgos, the TGV, ICE etc. are low slung on purpose for a variety of reasons (among them that the tilt doesn't work well on tall cars, and the tilt is meant to overcome the nausea that comes with the car leaning outside of a curve), and I doubt the bi-level cars would be suitable above 90mph for that reason, though I have seen no evidence either way.
Superliners were likely tested at 100 mph by Amtrak to make them qualified to run 90 - it's nice to have a cushion...
But, I believe the RFP for the midwest cars requires 125 mph qualification. There is nothing about the structure of a car that makes it suitable or not for that speed. It's the trucks, wheel profile and suspension. Reduce the wheel taper and pile on the damping and just about anything's possible.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Great comments!
I honestly think the Walker administration would be open to funding new equipment on the Chicago to Milwaukee run if someone (Amtrak should mention it as they are the business partner in the current service) approached the Walker Administration about the need to update the equipment as it was getting old. I would think you could sell them on the new equipment on the decreased maintenence costs and potentially the ability to chuck the cabbage unit at one end of the consist (reduced fuel consumption???).
Last, I think I would float the proposal to the Walker administration that they replace the power with the experimental power units that do not burn Diesel. Similar to what Amtrak uses on the Ft. Worth to OKC routing. Pretty sure that the Walker administration would jump on the decreased annual operating cost as a fairly effective business case to buying new equipment. Of course part of the contract is Illinois and you also have to convince Illinois to pay for what Illinois considers a low priority route because of it's short distance and limited coverage in the state..........so that would be a hill to climb.
CMStPnPOf course part of the contract is Illinois and you also have to convince Illinois to pay for what Illinois considers a low priority route because of it's short distance and limited coverage in the state..........so that would be a hill to climb.
The majority of the miles from Chicago Union Station to MKE are in Illinois. Given Walker and his party's record, it would seem that is the likely barrier.
Buslist By CMStPnP on May 15, 2014 BTW, I remember when the Turbo-Liners from ROHR industries were running Chicago - Milwaukee. Heard the same exclamations from the railfan community on how great they were. I thought they were nicer than regular conventional equipment on the inside as well but....... 1. They were fuel hogs. 2. Fixed Consist Amtrak did not like BUT hey now suddenly with the Talgo this is a great feature. Nor did Amtrak like the lack of flexibility or interchangeabilty of equipment. 3. Unique equipment increased Amtraks maintence and training costs over more standardized selection would have. 4. They did not handle extreme cold weather all that well.............Do the Talgos? Nobody knows and my bets are they will not handle the Midwestern extremes that well. 5. I am also pretty confident the Talgos will suck in crashworthiness with a conventional train although we keep getting assurances otherwise. I don't want to be in the first wreck where the Talgo is crushed like a soda can. OK let's try to get a few things straight here. First the ROHR turbos never ran in the Midwest. The ones based in Chicago were quasi off the shelf French turbos even down to European style hook and screw couplers and buffers. The ROHR versions were Americanized and ran only in Empire Service. One of the big problems with the French units was a precieved lack of collision protections for the crew in the event of a grade crossing incident. There was an issue of crews refusing calls on them (prior to ATK having its own crews). Yes the turbos were fuel hogs as most any turbo is but what does that have to do with Talgo? Talgos won't handle cold weather that well? Based on what evidence? And please tell that to RZD ( the Russian Railways ) that are putting 5 train sets into service out of Moscow! The only concerns I have heard from the professionals in this reguard is the ability of cab cars to buck snow piled up at grade crossings by highway plows. This could be a problem on the west end of the Detroit route with heavy lake effect snow and no overnight trains to keep the line relatively open. Why the doubt about crashworthyness? It's not just Talgo claiming that they are crashworthy but FRA has certified that they meet FRA's standards (often critisized as being too strict). This certification is based on physical tests of a car body (squeeze test) and the use of computer models developed and verified by the Volpe Center for FRA with full scale crash testing to verify model results. Is there something you know that FRA should be made aware of? Why exactly are you confident that they will suck? Based on what information?
Good factual info. Sounds like CMStPnP has some unexplained bias against Talgo.
schlimm CMStPnPOf course part of the contract is Illinois and you also have to convince Illinois to pay for what Illinois considers a low priority route because of it's short distance and limited coverage in the state..........so that would be a hill to climb. The majority of the miles from Chicago Union Station to MKE are in Illinois. Given Walker and his party's record, it would seem that is the likely barrier.
The "Joint Finance Committee." See http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb/jfc/Pages/default.aspx The Joint Finance Committee is your barrier -- start writing, people.
BuslistTalgos won't handle cold weather that well? Based on what evidence? And please tell that to RZD ( the Russian Railways ) that are putting 5 train sets into service out of Moscow! The only concerns I have heard from the professionals in this reguard is the ability of cab cars to buck snow piled up at grade crossings by highway plows. This could be a problem on the west end of the Detroit route with heavy lake effect snow and no overnight trains to keep the line relatively open.
Russians do not have the same attitudes in regards to safety or human life as we do in the United States. Hence I would not use them as an example. They really are only in Talgo to make money exporting to other countries. I do not expect them to report on any issues with the Talgo based on how they operate as a country. Yet I would not fly on their domestic produced passenger jets either.
BuslistWhy the doubt about crashworthyness? It's not just Talgo claiming that they are crashworthy but FRA has certified that they meet FRA's standards (often critisized as being too strict). This certification is based on physical tests of a car body (squeeze test) and the use of computer models developed and verified by the Volpe Center for FRA with full scale crash testing to verify model results. Is there something you know that FRA should be made aware of? Why exactly are you confident that they will suck? Based on what information?
Note how the people and the car contents spill out all over the tracks after the vestibule doors fail: Note how the cars seperate:
Oops! No more modernistic glass sliding door at the end of the car. Also, notice on the youtube tours of the talgo.........protruding hooks (instead of recessed), protruding handles (instead of recessed), etc.
CMStPnP Russians do not have the same attitudes in regards to safety or human life as we do in the United States. Hence I would not use them as an example. They really are only in Talgo to make money exporting to other countries. I do not expect them to report on any issues with the Talgo based on how they operate as a country. Yet I would not fly on their domestic produced passenger jets either. Note how the people and the car contents spill out all over the tracks after the vestibule doors fail: Note how the cars seperate:
Interesting comment about Russia only getting Talgo trains because they want to export them to other countries. The days of Russia exporting railroad equipment are at this point behind us. They've been importing technology from Western Europe since the Wall fell and the old East Bloc production assignments fell apart.
As for the picture of a Talgo accident: I assume it's of the infamous accident in Spain where the train went into a curve much, much too fast. However, a picture shot long after the actual accident proves none of the points you claim. Or are you suggesting that the 2 Talgo cars on the road by the bridge were propelled up there by the force of the accident? (Hint: we can see 2 mobile cranes lifting a 3rd Talgo car.) So few, if any of the Talgo cars on the tracks are at the time of the picture still in the actual position they stopped in after the accident. As for people and stuff on the tracks: By the time this picture was taken, obviously the passengers have been removed and the people we see are working on recovery and site cleanup. As for stuff laying around, I am sure there's plenty of stuff from the accident there, but again, since it's an active recovery scene, the stuff may or may not be where the accident put it. Some of it may also be debris from the recovery process.
I have no special feelings for Talgo trains one way or another. They are based on technology that has been successfully used in Europe since the 1940s. Because of their distinctive design features, they look different than more conventional rail passenger cars.
There's a whole other discussion in here about how one views crash-worthiness, where Europe takes one approach and the US (FRA) takes another approach. I have ridden thousands of miles on trains in Europe and do not in any way, shape or form feel unsafe on board those trains. Should those standards be good enough for the US? That's a good question and one that has to be looked at. Sure, I'm more protected driving down the road in a battle tank (been there, done that, and was eyewitness to a car crashing into a tank), but is that a reasonable level of protection?
Back to the Talgos: Some people like them, some don't. Some railway companies have had good success with them, others haven't or have sidelined them because they only had a few train sets like that and so maintenance became an issue. I would prefer to see the Wisconsin Talgo sets get put into revenue service, rather than just rotting away because a deal went all crazy political. Wisconsin doesn't want them, there are other places where they can be successfully used.
^^^ Perhaps you should read the Russian Press before you refute a point. The whole point Russia is getting a Talgo plant is to export trainsets to other countries (and that was Talgo's intent as well). Yes it speaks volumes on Talgo's concern about their reputation and quality BUT that was kind of out of scope of the threads discussion. BTW, your wrong about Russia not being able to export to other countries of lesser technological advancement. It does so at this present date. A number of countries use Russian designed but licensed production elsewhere (Iraq bought locomotives from the Czech Republic but clearly they are of Russian design as an example). A number of African countries do so and I believe some of the Indian Railways equipment is either Russian designed or based on Russian designs.
As for the crash worthiness, I knew if I responded someone would just come along and make excuses for the pictures vs reading the details of the accident. No matter, no actual requirement in this forum that you have to research anything..
There are fine examples of Talgos work right here in the USA in Seattle service. One does not need to look at Talgo in Russia or Spain. That is just a "red herring." [pun]
CMStPnP ^^^ Perhaps you should read the Russian Press before you refute a point. The whole point Russia is getting a Talgo plant is to export trainsets to other countries (and that was Talgo's intent as well). Yes it speaks volumes on Talgo's concern about their reputation and quality BUT that was kind of out of scope of the threads discussion. BTW, your wrong about Russia not being able to export to other countries of lesser technological advancement. It does so at this present date. A number of countries use Russian designed but licensed production elsewhere (Iraq bought locomotives from the Czech Republic but clearly they are of Russian design as an example). A number of African countries do so and I believe some of the Indian Railways equipment is either Russian designed or based on Russian designs. As for the crash worthiness, I knew if I responded someone would just come along and make excuses for the pictures vs reading the details of the accident. No matter, no actual requirement in this forum that you have to research anything..
No. I haven't taken the time to do specific research this week on this topic, but from what I have seen and read:
1) Talgo would seem to have a greater "concern about their reputation and quality" than any other railcar manufacturer I have ever heard of -- that's why they will not sell a single trainset without a Talgo maintenance agreement, which includes a Talgo technician on every revenue trip. (This from a speech given by Talgo's President.) This may be a reason the Cascades trainsets have historically had exceptionally high reliability and availability statistics -- and some of the highest customer-satisfaction ratings of any of Amtrak's routes.
2) Unless there is specific language in the report (even assuming that it accurately describes the actual agreement) that Talgo will not continue this maintenance requirement, why would you assume that it is not part of the agreement? If it is, what's wrong with Talgo getting better access to markets in Russia's sphere of influence through such a deal? How does it conceivably affect the safety of the Wisconsin-built, FRA-standard-meeting Talgo trainsets?
3) Is your analysis really so well researched? How about comparisons to US rail accidents, from the 1956 Santa Fe Redondo Junction (involving RDCs) to 1993 Big Bayou and 1999 Bourbonnais (both involving Superliners) -- all with substantial loss of life. And you can't just compare totals, but as a percentage of passengers and crew (222 on board the Talgo?). Putting aside the fact that it was one of the only serious accidents involving a Talgo in decades.
Any incident involving extremely excessive track speeds will cause substantial mayhem. I see no well-researched evidence here -- except your apparent anti-Talgo bias -- to indicate that the Talgo is inherently unsafe, compared to any other equipment in commonly service today.
In Putin's Russia, Talgo criticizes . . . you!
Paul Milenkovic In Putin's Russia, Talgo criticizes . . . you!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.