oltmannd all you ever need to know about tilt http://interfacejournal.com/archives/581
all you ever need to know about tilt
http://interfacejournal.com/archives/581
+1
According to the article, the main advantage of tilting is passenger comfort, not being able to navigate curves at higher speeds. The author suggests the US standard is too conservative and speeds in curves could be increased up to 10% without discomfort.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Peter gets it pretty good but tilting equipment far predates the British effort of the 80s goes back to the 3 Pendulum cars of of the early 40s. Saw the Silver Pendulum on the Q many times. (I could tell you many stories about Peter but I'll refrain).
schlimm oltmannd all you ever need to know about tilt http://interfacejournal.com/archives/581 +1 According to the article, the main advantage of tilting is passenger comfort, not being able to navigate curves at higher speeds. The author suggests the US standard is too conservative and speeds in curves could be increased up to 10% without discomfort.
yes the U.S. standard is conservative but IIRC the the tilting Acella and Talgo operate at far greater cant deficiency under an FRA waiver.
Just for comparison. Lots of three degree curves with 5" superelevation between Atlanta and Charlotte. Current speed limit is 60 mph which exactly matches 3" cant def. If you allow 9" cant def., you get 81 mph. Bump up the superelevation to 6", 85 mph.
So, Talgo alone between Atlanta and Charlotte would raise speed in long stretches from 60 mph to 79 mph.
For RR built around 2 degree curves and 4" superelevation (very common). 3" cant def, 70 mph.
2 deg, with 6" super, 80 mph.
4" at 9" cant, 95 mph.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
CG9602 schlimm Apples and oranges. The Talgo equipment is working well on Cascades services. That said, they never should have been purchased for the expanded WI service The Talgos were purchased because the plan was -- and still is -- to use the existing route along the Mississippi River. That section contains some curves, and the Talgos would take them at a higher speed than the Empire Builder does at present. There was a considerable amount of confusion regarding the entire Madison Hiawatha service extension, to the point where even other rail enthusiasts thought it was to bew a separate train. In reality, it was to be an extension of existing service, with the intention of extending the route all the way to Saint Paul, MN. The thinking was to purchase the train sets first, then extend the service afterwords. Would Minnesota purchase them for service between the Twin Cities and Chicago?
schlimm Apples and oranges. The Talgo equipment is working well on Cascades services. That said, they never should have been purchased for the expanded WI service
Apples and oranges. The Talgo equipment is working well on Cascades services. That said, they never should have been purchased for the expanded WI service
The Talgos were purchased because the plan was -- and still is -- to use the existing route along the Mississippi River. That section contains some curves, and the Talgos would take them at a higher speed than the Empire Builder does at present.
There was a considerable amount of confusion regarding the entire Madison Hiawatha service extension, to the point where even other rail enthusiasts thought it was to bew a separate train. In reality, it was to be an extension of existing service, with the intention of extending the route all the way to Saint Paul, MN. The thinking was to purchase the train sets first, then extend the service afterwords.
Would Minnesota purchase them for service between the Twin Cities and Chicago?
zkr123The Talgos were purchased because the plan was -- and still is -- to use the existing route along the Mississippi River. That section contains some curves, and the Talgos would take them at a higher speed than the Empire Builder does at present. There was a considerable amount of confusion regarding the entire Madison Hiawatha service extension, to the point where even other rail enthusiasts thought it was to bew a separate train. In reality, it was to be an extension of existing service, with the intention of extending the route all the way to Saint Paul, MN. The thinking was to purchase the train sets first, then extend the service afterwords. Would Minnesota purchase them for service between the Twin Cities and Chicago?
They are not really needed for the route or it's curves to achieve significant speed increase. The former Milwaukee Road route now Canadian Pacific was the last rail line built between Milwaukee and the Twin Cities and it was originally engineered for speed, shortness of route, as well as curve reduction. Your right there are curves between LaCrosse and St. Paul but how many of them are NOT so tight that thet Talgo presents a large advantage.
The problem I have is they bypassed a quality refurbisher of railcars in West Allis that has the contract for VIA Rail Canada and is refurbishing sleepers for the new Prestige Class. Made in USA and high quality craftsmanship. That manufacturer actually uses former Milwaukee Road Passenger Car shops tooling and has been in operations since at least the late 1980's in one location or another. So it has a track record, it also did a lot of the Alaska Railroad car rebuilding. There was even a second bidder beyond them, Wisconsin and Southern railway offered to take on the Milwaukee to Madison service for a subsidy. Both were bypassed in favor of Talgo.........no reason given. Gee, a private railway that owns the Watertown to Madison line and has trackage rights Watertown to Milwaukee with decades of freight rail experience and some excursion passenger service ignored, a high quality passenger railcar rebuilder with impressive past results ignored. Instead we get a nobid contract with Talgo with all sorts of political candy in it. Most would call that corruption at it's worst vs free enterprise.
Anyways back to the point. Milwaukee Road was regularly achieving speeds of 90 mph across Wisconsin as late as the 1960's on somewhat marginal track that would not pass for that speed limit today. Regardless, it did so with a really good safety record and they were fast trains. So pay for the track upgrades and stop looking for ways to cut corners. Why pay the maintence costs of the Talgo and the limited flexibility for adding or reducing cars when we can probably do better for cheaper by investing a little in the track? Is all aboard Florida using the Talgo? Of course not, no politics or political quid pro quos there. Their decision was made purely for private business reasons.....no politics. Further the FEC like the Milwaukee Road ROW was again......engineered for speed. Lets use the existing engineering and design as much as possible.
The Talgo "passive" suspension does not provide all that much tilt. Unlike the Pendolino or the LRC "active" tilt systems, it spares the passengers no more than half the sideways force of curves, maybe less.
3" is the amount of "cant deficiency" allowed by the FRA in the U.S. The cant deficiency is the amount you would need to crank up the outside rail for the passengers to feel zero sideways force, and the more cant deficiency allowed, the faster you can go around a curve. The FRA allows "equipment with outboard springs to avoid adverse lean", which is simply legalize for the Budd Amfleet truck, to operate at 6" cant deficiency, which is the same Talgo is allowed.
From Don's article and other sources, you probably don't want more than 6" cant deficiency anyway, unless you go to Turboliner-style "power cars" with low axle loads compared to a Genesis Diesel. So if you are going with conventional locomotives, Amfleet and Talgo probably give you the same speed around curves.
Furthermore, the same kind of partial compensation for the lean on curves offered by Talgo could be built into an Amfleet truck by canting the airsprings inward.
But in addition to the passive tilt, Talgo has a lighter weight (less fuel, especially on mountain grades and on schedules requiring better acceleration to speed), and in the absence of high-level platforms, it has a lower floor requiring fewer steps to enter. A similar low-entry advantage is to be had on California Car and Superliner bilevels, but passengers need to climb steps to the upper level to get between train cars.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
It would appear to most of us that the choice of Talgo for the WI route was fairly unwise.
Nobody has posted any good reason that Talgo equipment would be unwise, only that the benefits of tilt, such as they may be, are not utilized to a great degree.
If tilt isn't a factor, it comes down to the quality of the equipment (good, from all reports I've heard) and the price. Did Wisconsin get a good deal? The prior Governor thought so, apparently, and a new factory in Milwaukee was part of that calculus.
Once again the Piedmont equipment is owned and provided for by NC DOT not Amtrak. Would be foolish to get expensive equipment as NC DOT"s "Heritage" equipment is doing very fine and paid for.
conductorchrisIf tilt isn't a factor, it comes down to the quality of the equipment (good, from all reports I've heard) and the price. Did Wisconsin get a good deal? The prior Governor thought so, apparently, and a new factory in Milwaukee was part of that calculus.
Other than in the Pacific Northwest and in Spain, is Talgo equipment used anywhere else? If not, there must be a reason.
Talgos are also used in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, and will be used in Saudi Arabia.
They were formerly used in Argentina but fell victim to poor track (Talgos ride very poorly on bad track).
Without large amounts of curvature, the Talgos don't make as much sense as other trainsets due to lack of flexibility. One advantage that is useful elsewhere is the ease of which the gauge is changed, which only takes a few minutes due to the lack of conventional axles.
schlimm conductorchris If tilt isn't a factor, it comes down to the quality of the equipment (good, from all reports I've heard) and the price. Did Wisconsin get a good deal? The prior Governor thought so, apparently, and a new factory in Milwaukee was part of that calculus. Other than in the Pacific Northwest and in Spain, is Talgo equipment used anywhere else? If not, there must be a reason.
conductorchris If tilt isn't a factor, it comes down to the quality of the equipment (good, from all reports I've heard) and the price. Did Wisconsin get a good deal? The prior Governor thought so, apparently, and a new factory in Milwaukee was part of that calculus.
Actually RZD (Russia) Just placed the first of seven train sets in service. Three of these are automatic gage change trains for Moscow Berlin service. The Saudis just ordered 6 Train sets last month.
Interestingly virtually all of the Finish Railway's long distance passenger cars are "Talgos", conventional double deck cars built by Talgo, I was impressed with them. On each long distance train I rode one car's upper level was fitted out a a children's play area. Neat idea.
That's good to hear. But it seems Talgos make the most sense with curvy track and gauge changes, neither of which apply on the routes in question here.
conductorchrisDid Wisconsin get a good deal? The prior Governor thought so, apparently, and a new factory in Milwaukee was part of that calculus.
Actually his spending past was one of the main reasons Governor Walker wisely cancelled the program before Wisconsin went deep in the hole debt wise. The small print on spending that Federal Money is that in a few years specific metrics had to be met as an outcome of the project or the state would have to pay all the money back to the Feds. Illinois is currently trapped under those provisions of the grant. Specifically stated was a mph metric as well as service metric that had to be achieved and met by the project.
Another fact is the Talgos were pushed through on a no bid contract that was not open to range of passenger car builders. Why would a Governor do that unless there was some other financial incentive that went undisclosed. So far I have not heard a convincing response back on that.
Last but not least both Amtrak and Wisconsin has had past experience with fixed trainsets on the Chicago to Milwaukee route with the former Amtrak Turboliners. The equipment was nice inside but maintenence and fuel bills on the trainsets due to foriegn parts were fairly astronomical. WisDOT is trying to reduce subsidy as much as possible to Amtrak it is not looking to buy trainsets to maximize it's maintence costs. A much better alternative would have been for the Wisconsin Governor to WAIT for the Midwestern designed corridor cars that were to be developed in Illinois instead of attempting to short circuit that process by jumping the gun with Talgo and attempting to tell the rest of the Midwestern Compact that Wisconsin had already found a solution on it's own. IMO, that alone was enough for Governor Doyle to get burned. Standardized trainsets throughout the Midwest that can achieve 125 mph are the way to go because the economies of scale with production will lower their cost per unit.
Additionally, it also lowers Amtrak's training costs and crew use flexibility if the cars are based on a design that Amtrak has already approved for use. Why bring in something alien to the rest of the Amtrak system when Amtrak is going to be running and maintaining them. Why not base the new car on a past Amtrak design with incremental improvements so that Amtrak does not have to pay to retrain it's crews and stock a whole new set of parts at it's maintenece facility.
It's really the difference between a business decision based on reducing costs vs a emotional decision based on the drunken sailor on leave with lots of free Federal money principle.
CMStPnPIt's really the difference between a business decision based on reducing costs vs a emotional decision based on the drunken sailor on leave with lots of free Federal money principle.
I would say it's the difference between a rational decision based on the total picture of what works best, cost, compatibility, etc. vs a political collusion with one business with the primary criterion local (Milwaukee) jobs at the Talgo plant.
BTW, I suspect another disadvantage of the Talgo is probably you cannot necessarily intermix cars from different generations within the same trainset without issues because Talgo upgrades various SYSTEMIC components with each generation so your forced to buy a whole new trainset. To me that is also inefficent. It's great for the bottom line of Talgo though. Conventional trains have no issue mixing in newer cars with older cars as long as standards are followed.
Let's see if can offer a basis for the Talgo decision, even though there are plenty of points to criticize it.
The starting point is the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative. Our back-then (Republican) Wisconsin governor was big on "transportation" (read road building), and to complement his highway buildout, he at least gave lip-service to adding trains to the mix. When President George W Bush was elected, his ambition was to be the Secretary of Transportation. Whatever his smarts, his qualifications, or lack thereof as claimed by political opponents, he badly wanted to be the Transportation secretary, and I think he would have been good at it and good for some of the vast transportation budget to be directed at trains because that is where his interests were. Instead, in the type of political patronage that went on in handing out those appointments, he was made HHS (Health and Human Services) Secretary.
I guess his name came up because it was associated with the Welfare-to-Work (W2) program in Wisconsin that many liberals criticized as putting the squeeze on the poor and vulnerable, but it became the model for the welfare reform enacted by a Republican Congress under Democratic President Clinton. But Secretary Thompson made many embarrassing pronouncements as HHS Secretary by being his good-ol-boy-from-da-state we knew him to be that were cringe-worthy for those of us in Wisconsin to be uttered on the national stage. It would have been better all around if were DOT secretary, and much better for trains, but it didn't work out that way.
In the context of the proposed Midwest Regional Rail Initiative, and in the context that this was a multi-state arrangement -- all Pharohs and no stone masons -- and in the context that there was strong support for this kind of thing at the time, both at WisDOT and by our Governor, Wisconsin attempted to lead on this thing.
The Rail Initiative was a multi-billion dollar thing of which the actual rolling stock was a minor expense -- most of the money for that along with the 800 million in Stimulus Money under the Obama Administration for Midwest Regional Rail Initiative Lite (the service extension to Madison along with upgrades to CP tracks to Milwaukee for the faster and more frequent passenger trains, mainly more double-track crossovers), most of that money was for track and other fixed facilities and the actual trains were a small part of the total amount.
People talk about innovation and new trains rather than same-old same-old, and the impetus behind Talgo was innovation. The Talgos are light weight, which helps with fuel economy and with acceleration to meet accelerated schedules. The Talgos have low floors speeding boarding at non-high-level platforms, and if you don't need to go double-deck (people were not thinking that platform lengths were a limiting factor for the anticipated train sizes), the low floor extends throughout the train. You don't have a disabled person boarding the train and then being confined to the lower level of a single train car with respect to using other services (cafe car) on the train.
Talgos have that tilt -- not nearly as much as the active-tilt Pendolinos and LRC cars, but enough to make some contribution to accelerating schedules. The Talgo design with its guided axles and lower center-of-gravity and axle load than a bilevel was regarded as an intrinsically higher-speed design than bi-levels, which I guess are being qualified to operate up to 125 MPH. But you have to understand the thinking in that the Pacific Surfliner "California Car" bilevel was regarded as a 79 MPH design and the Talgo was regarded as a high-speed design -- not 180 MPH TGV territory, but for 110 MPH with the capability to go faster, and light in weight to make the acceleration levels needed for faster service practical for Diesel and non-gas turbine non electric operation.
This "Talgo thing" was not driven from the Governor's office, which would have been Republican Governor Tommy Thompson and not his Democratic successor former Attorney General Jim Doyle. This impetus came from the WisDOT people, and their impetus was to go with something innovative to advance the state of the art with respect to comfort (Talgo is said to be good from the standpoint of ergonomics and amenities and industrial design in that department), accessibility from low-level platforms, and energy efficiency and high(er) speed capability with Diesel trains.
The idea that Jim Doyle was somehow corruptly influenced to go with Talgo ignores what we in Wisconsin know about our political people. The idea came from within WisDOT for the reasons I mentioned, and I was there at the meetings WisDOT people had with local passenger train advocacy people to know this.
Yes, there was a "deal" for the Talgo Factory in Milwaukee, but a Governor, Republican or Democrat, would be remiss if they didn't play this game of "deals" to get factories into their state, especially for Milwaukee where people have suffered from the Rust Belt economic decline affecting the entire Great Lakes industrial region. But the context of the "deal" was the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative and WisDOT wanting to go with Talgo as an innovative solution to a comfortable, semi-HSR corridor train, and the idea that this would set the standard for the Regional service rather than being the orphan it turned out to be.
The thing is that I along with many other advocacy people, probably people reading this forum, was there when this was being discussed. The interest in a lightweight innovative train goes back to before the mid Oughties (2000-2009), when people in the local advocacy group were privy to presentations from Alan Cripes' people who were going to build a Diesel-hydraulic version of the Turbo Train. But by the time it came to let the contracts, Talgo were the only people still in business offering something "different" from the same-old-same-old Amfleet/California Car.
Maybe not you, but we, who the you could influenced before-the-fact instead of in smug hindsight, could have voiced a contrary opinion with the WisDOT people. There was a time when a person like you or me (it could have been me -- there was a time when I had the ears of the people making this decision) and said, "No, we as passenger train advocates don't want to risk the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative on untried technology where you cannot even uncouple the train cars (I mentioned it to our advocacy group President who was an old WisDOT man and former railroad guy, who dismissed my concerns about fixed consists with 'The Hiawatha runs with fixed consists anyway because it doesn't pay to add and remove train cars with traffic demands in today's operating environment and labor costs."). We could have pounded the table and not have WisDOT pushing Talgo, and there would have been people listening to us, but we were as enamored with "new and improved" without examining it critically as anyone else.
Well, instead of leading, Wisconsin is a distant follower on account of a new Pharoh arising in the land north of Mifflin Street cancelling the 800 million dollar award and contract. The Talgo is an orphan, and we cannot even give it way because whoever takes it has to hand over cold cash for the Talgo maintenance contract, and after Talgo's 1950's experience with their trains being undermaintened orphans, that Talgo company absolutely, will not, let anyone operate the trains without their maintenance.
Was this a mistake? Maybe, in hindsight. But as to the insinuations of corruption and the Monday morning football play calling, it was not only the best decision, it was the only decision available -- that is, if the purpose of the Midwest Initiative was not only to run trains but to advance the quality of the riding experience.
With Wisconsin out of the picture, Amtrak and the "other states" (cough, Illinois, cough) are going with 125-MPH qualified California-Car type bilevels. In terms of weight-per-seat, these heavier cars may turn out to be competitive with Talgo because these heavier cars have 3 times the floor space as the single-axle-per car Talgo "bus." In terms of their higher center-of-gravity, maybe it doesn't make a difference in the Midwestern flatlands. In terms of low-floor boarding, they have that but without no-step access to the Cafe Car and the rest of the train. In terms of the burgeoning ridership and peak demands (people commute on these "corridor" trains despite our advocacy distinction that these are "inter-city trains"), the bi-level solves the train-length-limited by existing platforms problem.
So yes, that the Midwest Regional train "thingy" is going ahead without Wisconsin on 125 MPH bilevels is probably, on balance, a Good Thing (tm). Maybe the Talgo with its guided axles has better track dynamics and less rail wear at higher speeds, but I guess we won't find out. But the sniping about the decision by Governor Doyle to purchase a pair of Talgo trainsets for the Chicago-Milwaukee Hiawatha, that is all rail on the tracks behind us.
Thanks for a comprehensive discussion of the WisDOT Talgo decisions.
zkr123 Since the Wisconsin Talgo sets are just sitting unused, and Michigan in limbo about purchasing them, why not put them to use on the Piedmont?
Since the Wisconsin Talgo sets are just sitting unused, and Michigan in limbo about purchasing them, why not put them to use on the Piedmont?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.