Article from retired NH engineer

[Anonymous]

VOLKER LANDWEHR

 

 

243129

The article says that the Marshall Plan paved the way for high-tech (read high-speed) railways in Germany and the rest of Europe. Whether it was stated in 1990 or 2018 the meaning is still the same.

 

 

That is the same way I read it and nobody questioned this. But you use this one quoted sentence as proof for the following statement in your article: With nothing in the way, the Marshall Plan and SCAP — with an eye on the future — rebuilt the railway systems as straight as practicable.

And that your interpretation of the quote from the Washington Post doesn't say. It defines the described time frame, the 1990s, with modern prosperous cities and production of jet fighters. These two quotes have a completely different meaning. And again neither the German railway system nor most likely the Japanese cape gauge system were rebuilt with high speed in mind.

The Japanese system only most likely because it is based only on facts I know about the Shinkansen.

 

 

243129

"Perhaps" tells me that you are not sure that it is incorrect. It is not and you have not presented any facts to the contrary.

 

 

Put the "perhaps" on the fact that the moderation doesn't allow edits. I'm sure that my German facts are correct and your assumptions in the above quote from your article are wrong.

I have provided a lot of fact, except the one article that doesn't fit?
Regards, Volker

 

 

The last sentence of my quoted post needs a correction. I should have been the following from the beginning:

I have provided a lot of facts. What other facts can you provide except the one article that doesn't fit.
Regards, Volker

[243129]

VOLKER LANDWEHR

I have provided a lot of facts. What other facts can you provide except the one article that doesn't fit.

Are you going to post a fact to counter the "article that doesn't fit"?

[Anonymous]

243129

 

 

VOLKER LANDWEHR

I have provided a lot of facts. What other facts can you provide except the one article that doesn't fit.

 

 

Are you going to post a fact to counter the "article that doesn't fit"?

 

Why don't you post additional fact supporting your statement that the railroads were rebuilt after WW2 as straight as possible?

If you have read my post completely you should have found the facts you ask for. but I#ll show you again.

On October 20th, 2018 you posted the following. I added the blue part to make the citation complete:

[quote]"In Europe, the legacy of the Marshall Plan is visible for all to see: in high-tech railways and highways," in prosperous, modern cities, in products from perfume to fighter jets.

What was written in 1997 was in reference to the results of what took place in 1948-1951. [end quote]

As written in my post there were no modern, prosperous cities and no fighter production in that time frame.

Photos of Hamburg:

Hamburg City Hall plaza 1951: http://www.hamburg-bildarchiv.de/XC2440.jpg
Hamburg, view from St.Michaelis church 1951: http://www.hamburg-bildarchiv.de/XAA7027.jpg

Hamburg-Hamm 1952: http://www.hamburg-bildarchiv.de/XBA0947.jpg
Rubbly recycling plant.

Hamburh-St.Georg 1951: http://www.hamburg-bildarchiv.de/XAA1069.jpg

Living quarters in use until 1954: https://img.shz.de/img/holsteinischer-courier/crop100554/5750567654-cv16_9-w570-h372-o/23-43428613.jpg

Regards, Volker

[Anonymous]

A friend of mine visited the DB-Museum in Nuremberg last week. They have a permanent documentary exhibition called “History of Railroad in Germany”. The Museum is owned by Deutsche Bahn (DB).

My friend sent me the exhibition catalog accompanying the exhibition. The volume I’ll cite from is called: „Auf getrennten Gleisen , Reichsbahn und Bundesbahn 1945 – 1989“ [On separated tracks, GDR-Railway and German Federal Railway 1945 – 1989], and was published by the DB-Museum as ISBN 3-9807653-3-7.

I hope the translation gives some impressions of the situation after WW2.

Page 11, Collapse and Reconstruction

The victorious powers, which France later joined, now also ruled the Reichsbahn. Under their supervision, the destroyed railway facilities were quickly repaired with a makeshift repair, so that military transports, coal, and food supplies and millions of travelers could reach their destination

 

Page 17, Restoration:

Immediately after the war ended everywhere the repairs of the destroyed railway facilities were started. To secure their own supply routes the victorious powers were interested in rapid reconstruction and pushed the work forward.

There was a lack of sufficient tools and building materials such as cement, wood, steel, bricks and glass. In order to access materials, the remnants of the ruins were reused as much as possible. Secondary routes were also dismantled and the track superstructures thus obtained were used for the repair of the main routes.

In the face of these obstacles, a lot initially could get fixed provisionally. So initially only one or two station tracks were made passable through the rubble mountains. Many bridges were restored to single track only.

The makeshift repairs were sufficient to quickly restart train operations. In the western occupation zones, almost all routes could be used again until the end of 1947. By then, 90 percent of the destroyed and damaged bridges had been finally or provisionally restored. In addition, 75 percent of the destroyed tracks and 72 percent of the switches had been replaced.

However, two and a half years after the end of the war, the railway was far away from the speed and comfort of the pre-war trains in both East and West of Germany. It would take many more years to reach the earlier standard of performance

Page 77, Rising Speed:

The Second World War had thrown back the German Railway in technical terms several years. This was particularly evident in the development of speed: By 1955, freight and passenger trains were on average slower than twenty years earlier. Thus, the fast railcars reached an average of 85 to 90 km / h in 1951 on the then reestablished long-distance express network, which were 20 to 30 km / h less than in 1939.

Thus the entire superstructure was extensively renewed since the mid-1950s and designed for higher speeds. The rail joints started to disappeared, and beginning in 1954 endlessly welded rails became the standard track.

Finally, DB was able to eliminate the numerous low-speed sections. In 1957, the number was over 800.

Regards, Volker

P.S.: I apologize in advance if the forum software changes the formatting of the post. It was written in Word. I'm currently not allowed to edit my posts.

 

 

 

 

[BaltACD]

Truth is not truth; fact is not fact

And so it goes.............Blah is Blah is Blah

[243129]

BaltACD

Truth is not truth; fact is not fact

And so it goes.............Blah is Blah is Blah

 

...and being ordered to exceed timetable speeds is O.K.

[BaltACD]

243129

 

BaltACD

Truth is not truth; fact is not fact

And so it goes.............Blah is Blah is Blah 

...and being ordered to exceed timetable speeds is O.K.

History is history - get over it!

[243129]

Backshop

 

 

 

 

 

The first quote, not the second.  You're either obtuse or losing it.  In either case, I think everyone should ignore you and let you live in your happy little world.  Goodbye!

 

 

Speaking of "acrimonious".

[BaltACD]

BaltACD

 

243129 

BaltACD

Truth is not truth; fact is not fact

And so it goes.............Blah is Blah is Blah 

...and being ordered to exceed timetable speeds is O.K. 

History is history - get over it!

Found this first hand account on another forum

We worked the North Vernon Secondary and then on trackage rights into Louisville on the B&O. We used to call the North Vernon Secondary, two steaks of rust, but the B&O, on the other hand, was ‘Big Iron’. Sometimes we’d have time for lunch and sometimes we didn’t. When the B&O Dispatcher said “Go!”, we went. It was a 50 mile run and many times we made it in 45 minutes. The engineers went crazy down there and would bury the throttle up into the ceiling. There was a long bridge over the Muscatatuck Creek. We didn’t worry about it because it was smooth. We just went.

There was a Grain Elevator at Letts (Letts Corner between Greensburg and Westport) that we worked. Every Halloween, the kids would grease the rail. Near Halloween, we would cut the engine off and run ahead and sand the rail. We just knew that we had to do it or we wouldn’t get past Letts.

Do you know what a Drop is? Yes? Do you know what a problem is? That’s when you have five cars to drop into a siding with room for three.

Do you know what a Ground Relay and a diesel is? Yes? Well then, there was the time in Elkhart when a brand new Fireman came in from the run north saying that he was exhausted. He had spent the whole trip ‘Grinding the Relay’. He had pushed the button to reset the Ground Relay and he had worked hard.

Bill Wright

The writer presumably was a NYC employee.  Different time, different world, different actions.

[243129]

"Presumably" says it all.

[Euclid]

BaltACD

 

BaltACD

 

243129 

BaltACD

Truth is not truth; fact is not fact

And so it goes.............Blah is Blah is Blah 

...and being ordered to exceed timetable speeds is O.K. 

History is history - get over it!

 

 

Found this first hand account on another forum

 

We worked the North Vernon Secondary and then on trackage rights into Louisville on the B&O. We used to call the North Vernon Secondary, two steaks of rust, but the B&O, on the other hand, was ‘Big Iron’. Sometimes we’d have time for lunch and sometimes we didn’t. When the B&O Dispatcher said “Go!”, we went. It was a 50 mile run and many times we made it in 45 minutes. The engineers went crazy down there and would bury the throttle up into the ceiling. There was a long bridge over the Muscatatuck Creek. We didn’t worry about it because it was smooth. We just went.

There was a Grain Elevator at Letts (Letts Corner between Greensburg and Westport) that we worked. Every Halloween, the kids would grease the rail. Near Halloween, we would cut the engine off and run ahead and sand the rail. We just knew that we had to do it or we wouldn’t get past Letts.

Do you know what a Drop is? Yes? Do you know what a problem is? That’s when you have five cars to drop into a siding with room for three.

Do you know what a Ground Relay and a diesel is? Yes? Well then, there was the time in Elkhart when a brand new Fireman came in from the run north saying that he was exhausted. He had spent the whole trip ‘Grinding the Relay’. He had pushed the button to reset the Ground Relay and he had worked hard.

Bill Wright

 

 

The writer presumably was a NYC employee.  Different time, different world, different actions.

 

I would say there was plenty of exceeding the speed limit with freight trains during the 1960s and later.  The last time we touched on this subject, I think it was about exceeding the 79 mph limit with passenger trains.  In my opinion, that is an artifact popular around 1900, but not 1960.  But in the 1960 era, freight trains would occasionally run 80 mph with a limit of 55 or 49.  They were not making up time.  They were hurrying to get home. 

[Euclid]

Backshop

We have a "Doubting Thomas" here.  If he didn't actually see it; it never happened.

 

What are you talking about?

[243129]

Euclid

 

 

BaltACD

 

BaltACD

 

243129 

BaltACD

Truth is not truth; fact is not fact

And so it goes.............Blah is Blah is Blah 

...and being ordered to exceed timetable speeds is O.K. 

History is history - get over it!

 

 

Found this first hand account on another forum

 

We worked the North Vernon Secondary and then on trackage rights into Louisville on the B&O. We used to call the North Vernon Secondary, two steaks of rust, but the B&O, on the other hand, was ‘Big Iron’. Sometimes we’d have time for lunch and sometimes we didn’t. When the B&O Dispatcher said “Go!”, we went. It was a 50 mile run and many times we made it in 45 minutes. The engineers went crazy down there and would bury the throttle up into the ceiling. There was a long bridge over the Muscatatuck Creek. We didn’t worry about it because it was smooth. We just went.

There was a Grain Elevator at Letts (Letts Corner between Greensburg and Westport) that we worked. Every Halloween, the kids would grease the rail. Near Halloween, we would cut the engine off and run ahead and sand the rail. We just knew that we had to do it or we wouldn’t get past Letts.

Do you know what a Drop is? Yes? Do you know what a problem is? That’s when you have five cars to drop into a siding with room for three.

Do you know what a Ground Relay and a diesel is? Yes? Well then, there was the time in Elkhart when a brand new Fireman came in from the run north saying that he was exhausted. He had spent the whole trip ‘Grinding the Relay’. He had pushed the button to reset the Ground Relay and he had worked hard.

Bill Wright

 

 

The writer presumably was a NYC employee.  Different time, different world, different actions.

 

 

 

 

I would say there was plenty of exceeding the speed limit with freight trains during the 1960s and later.  The last time we touched on this subject, I think it was about exceeding the 79 mph limit with passenger trains.  In my opinion, that is an artifact popular around 1900, but not 1960.  But in the 1960 era, freight trains would occasionally run 80 mph with a limit of 55 or 49.  They were not making up time.  They were hurrying to get home. 

 

I was an engineer in the 1960's era and never witnessed or heard of the events you mention.

My original comment had to do with employees being 'ordered' by the superintendent to exceed timetable speeds, an order which I find unconscionable. 

[Paul3]

If I may go back to the original article posted, I'd like to offer the following:

It starts with an opinion that NEC high speed rail isn't feasible, but it does not define what "high speed" actually is.  If one was to argue that "high speed" is 200mph, then yes, 200mph trains on the current NEC just isn't going to happen.  The infrastructure just can't handle it.  However, the European Union and the International Union of Railways defines "High Speed" rail for existing lines as reaching 124mph or more, so that's what I'll go with.

As can be clearly seen with Acela (150mph) and Amtrak Regional (125mph) service on the NEC and their ridership levels, high speed rail is quite feasible.  Being profitable is a another question, but there's no doubt that NEC high speed rail is quite successful in attracting ridership.  In 2000 after the introduction of the Acela Express, ridership to Boston went up 45%.  Last year, Amtrak passengers using the NEC in BOS totaled 1,501,152.  This can be compared to the New Haven's BOS to NYG/NYP ridership which was just 323,144 in 1968.

Next, the article states that the Acela Express only accomplished a fraction of what they were touted to do, but it does not define what was touted, nor all that wasn't accomplished.  It does go on to say that it didn't beat the 1969 Metroliner NYP/WAS timetable but oddly leaves out the much better timetable improvements between Boston & New York which is a far curvier RoW.  Plus the fact that the Metroliners only lasted 12 years in NEC service whereas the Acela already has 18 years in service with several more years to go.  Reliability is an Acela virtue over the Metroliners.

Next, the statement is made that unitized trains have proven not practical because of the NH's Dan'l Webster/John Quincy Adams trainsets and the TurboTrain.  The NH's "tin trains" were indeed unpopular.  They had no food service as built, rode rough, and broke down consistently.  The TurboTrain was turbine powered and was thus ever more expensive to run with rising oil prices.  Their collective failings had little to do with the fixed consists and more to do with the quality of the equipment/service and the cost.

To show that fixed consists can be very practical, I submit the French TGV, the Japanese Bullet Trains, the Swedish X2000, the German ICE, the Spanish Talgos, the Chinese CRH, the Korean KTX, etc.  I've never heard of anyone saying these weren't practical because they can't set out a car enroute.  All these "unitized" train sets have proven practical in real-world use, some for decades.

As for setting out a defective Amfleet car and the train continuing on the route with minimal delay...when was the last time this has happened?  A point of fact is that there aren't too many sidings anymore.  For example, leaving Boston there aren't any sidings until just south of Rt. 128.  Then it's Mansfield, Boston Switch, and Providence.  That's 4 possible locations in ~40 miles...and none of them are electified.  So if the defective car is anywhere in the first few cars of the train then it can't be spotted off the mainline without the risking the pantograph coming off the wire.

Certainly, running the same schedule, the difference in time between a Regional train with a conventional consist and the Acela isn't vast.  The difference in time between 125mph and 150mph isn't that great for the few miles of 150mph track used.  The Acela does accelerate faster and brakes harder than any AEM-7/Amfleet ever could.  But again, the difference isn't that large.  However, the Acela is a much better ride.  It is quieter, smoother, with better views, food, ammenities, and seating.  I've ridden the Acela at least 10 times, with even more rides on Amfleet trains.  There's no question as to which I'd rather be on.  I have found it to be well worth the extra cost.

As for the Concorde SST, it was more of the global downturn of airline travel after 9/11 and the end of maintenance support by Airbus that ended their flights in 2003.

At the end, the conclusion is that Amtrak should rehab Amfleet again (with some things they already have...like Wi-Fi), and that the Acela Express would be "quickly forgotten".  Considering the rider reaction to the return of the Acela after they all got sidelined with faulty brakes back in the day, I rather doubt it.  Riders like the Acela; they missed it when it was gone.  Spending money to buy replacements for the popular Acela sounds like a wise investment.  Rebuilding equipment that is at least 35 years old (that will never be as nice to ride in as the Acela cars) doesn't seem as wise.

[daveklepper]

Good analysis

[blue streak 1]

All that is neded on the NEC is HrSR = 125+ MPH all sections.  That would allow for 2:00  WASH <> NYP and 2:30 NYP <> BOS including stops.

[243129]

Paul3

It starts with an opinion that NEC high speed rail isn't feasible, but it does not define what "high speed" actually is.

Paul3

As can be clearly seen with Acela (150mph) and Amtrak Regional (125mph) service on the NEC and their ridership levels, high speed rail is quite feasible.

True high speed is not 150 mph and 125 mph for relatively short distances as we have now.

Amtrak force-fed the Acela Express to the traveling public, trumpeting its airplane-style decor, desktop seating replete with USB ports, Wi-Fi and receptacles for recharging sundry electronic devices, masking the fact that for the extra cost, they did not arrive at their destination much sooner than the Regional Service trains — and the time difference mainly was due to the Acela making fewer stops than the Regional Service trains. Amtrak’s 30-plus-year-old AEM7 locomotives with Amfleet coaches and an experienced engineer, were they allowed, could equal Acela Express running time as did the Metroliners of 1969.

Paul3

Next, the article states that the Acela Express only accomplished a fraction of what they were touted to do, but it does not define what was touted, nor all that wasn't accomplished.

[quote user="Paul3"]Next, the statement is made that unitized trains have proven not practical because of the NH's Dan'l Webster/John Quincy Adams trainsets and the TurboTrain. [/quote]

That was never stated in the article. It is because they are unitized. Depending on the severity of the defect an Amfleet consist can be moved to an area that affords room to set off the defective car. This cannot be accomplished with a unitized train.

[quote user="Paul3"]As for setting out a defective Amfleet car and the train continuing on the route with minimal delay...when was the last time this has happened?[/quote]

What is the difference if it happened one day, one year or five years from now? It can and will happen.

[quote user="Paul3"]Certainly, running the same schedule, the difference in time between a Regional train with a conventional consist and the Acela isn't vast.[/quote]

That is the point of the article and why a major portion of the $2.45 billion 'loan' should not be devoted to a technology that is not feasible on the NEC.

Paul3

However, the Acela is a much better ride. It is quieter, smoother, with better views, food, ammenities, and seating.

Perhaps you also are blinded by the bells and whistles. The ride quality is not good just ask any conductor or assistant conductor who spend much of the trip on their feet.

Paul3

As for the Concorde SST, it was more of the global downturn of airline travel after 9/11 and the end of maintenance support by Airbus that ended their flights in 2003.

"On 10 April 2003, Air France and British Airways simultaneously announced that they would retire Concorde later that year. They cited low passenger numbers following the 25 July 2000 crash, the slump in air travel following the 11 September attacks and rising maintenance costs."

Conventional air travel did not suffer the same fate.

Paul3

At the end, the conclusion is that Amtrak should rehab Amfleet again (with some things they already have...like Wi-Fi), and that the Acela Express would be "quickly forgotten". Considering the rider reaction to the return of the Acela after they all got sidelined with faulty brakes back in the day, I rather doubt it. Riders like the Acela; they missed it when it was gone. Spending money to buy replacements for the popular Acela sounds like a wise investment. Rebuilding equipment that is at least 35 years old (that will never be as nice to ride in as the Acela cars) doesn't seem as wise.

As is stated in the article.

"Amtrak force-fed the Acela Express to the traveling public, trumpeting its airplane-style decor, desktop seating replete with USB ports, Wi-Fi and receptacles for recharging sundry electronic devices, masking the fact that for the extra cost, they did not arrive at their destination much sooner than the Regional Service trains — and the time difference mainly was due to the Acela making fewer stops than the Regional Service trains. Amtrak’s 30-plus-year-old AEM7 locomotives with Amfleet coaches and an experienced engineer, were they allowed, could equal Acela Express running time as did the Metroliners of 1969."

[243129]

You will have to excuse the above color change and quotes. I have no idea how that happened or how to correct it. I will however work on it.

[charlie hebdo]

 European Union Directive 96/48/EC, Annex 1 defines high-speed rail in terms of:

1. Infrastructure: track built specially for high-speed travel or specially upgraded for high-speed travel.
2. Minimum Speed Limit: Minimum speed of 250 km/h (155 mph) on lines specially built for high speed and of about 200 km/h (124 mph) on existing lines which have been specially upgraded. This must apply to at least one section of the line. Rolling stock must be able to reach a speed of at least 200 km/h (124 mph) to be considered high speed.
3. Operating conditions: Rolling stock must be designed alongside its infrastructure for complete compatibility, safety and quality of service.^[3]

The International Union of Railways (UIC) identifies three categories of high-speed rail:^[4]

Category I – New tracks specially constructed for high speeds, allowing a maximum running speed of at least 250 km/h (155 mph).

Category II – Existing tracks specially upgraded for high speeds, allowing a maximum running speed of at least 200 km/h (124 mph).

Category III – Existing tracks specially upgraded for high speeds, allowing a maximum running speed of at least 200 km/h (124 mph), but with some sections having a lower allowable speed (for example due to topographic constraints, or passage through urban areas).

A third definition of high-speed and very high-speed rail (Demiridis & Pyrgidis 2012) requires simultaneous fulfilment of the following two conditions:^[4]

1. Maximum achievable running speed in excess of 200 km/h (124 mph), or 250 km/h (155 mph) for very high-speed,
2. Average running speed across the corridor in excess of 150 km/h (93 mph), or 200 km/h (124 mph) for very high-speed.

The UIC prefers to use "definitions" (plural) because they consider that there is no single standard definition of high-speed rail, nor even standard usage of the terms ("high speed", or "very high speed"). They make use of the European EC Directive 96/48, stating that high speed is a combination of all the elements which constitute the system: infrastructure, rolling stock and operating conditions.^[3] The International Union of Railways states that high-speed rail is a set of unique features, not merely a train travelling above a particular speed. Many conventionally hauled trains are able to reach 200 km/h (124 mph) in commercial service but are not considered to be high-speed trains. These include the French SNCF Intercités and German DB IC.

The criterion of 200 kilometres per hour (120 mph) is selected for several reasons; above this speed, the impacts of geometric defects are intensified, track adhesion is decreased, aerodynamic resistance is greatly increased, pressure fluctuations within tunnels cause passenger discomfort, and it becomes difficult for drivers to identify trackside signalling.^[4] Standard signaling equipment is often limited to speeds below 200 km/h with the traditional limits of 79 mph (127 km/h) in the US, 160 km/h (99 mph) in Germany and 125 mph (201 km/h) in Britain. Above those speeds positive train control or the European Train Control System becomes necessary or legally mandatory.

[zugmann]

No matter how many times you rebuild the amfleets - they still look like commuter coaches from the 1970s.   Yeah, they are functional - but so is a 1992 Toyota Camry.  Yet there are still lots of people that would rather have a new Audi, Tesla, or Ford F150.   It's going to be hard to get people excited about higher speed rail if they are riding the same trains they did 10, 20, or 30 years ago as a kid.

 

I also don't think Acela was purely about faster speeds (although it was a pretty important part).  It was about bringing something new to the table that people could get a little excited about.   Of course, I think there is a big difference between the views of operating personnel (and railfans) vs. marketing and promotion people, so that's why some may pine for the ol' amtubes.  (or maybe it's one of those things that remind us that we aren't as young as we wish to be).

[Backshop]

The Concorde was an orphan whose time was past.

[243129]

blue streak 1

All that is neded on the NEC is HrSR = 125+ MPH all sections.  That would allow for 2:00  WASH <> NYP and 2:30 NYP <> BOS including stops.

 

WAS-NYP 2:00 possible but highly unlikely.

NYP-BOS 2:30 impossible.

[243129]

Backshop

The Concorde was an orphan whose time was past.

 

How so?

[243129]

zugmann

It's going to be hard to get people excited about higher speed rail i

It is not going to get any higher on the existing ROW than it is now

[Anonymous]

243129

Amtrak’s 30-plus-year-old AEM7 locomotives with Amfleet coaches and an experienced engineer, were they allowed, could equal Acela Express running time as did the Metroliners of 1969.

I have a question about the circumstances and if one can really compares apples with apples.

Possible travel times are not only dependend on safe curve speed alone but more so on speed limited by allowed lateral acceleration for passengers.

What was the allowed lateral acceleration for passenger cars in 1969?

The Acela is limited to a lateral acceleration for passengers of 0.1g. FRA increased the lateral acceleration to 0.15g in 2013 (49 CFR 213.57 (d)(2)(ii).
Regards, Volker

[Backshop]

243129

 

 

Backshop

The Concorde was an orphan whose time was past.

 

 

 

 

How so?

 

Very limited production.  They were originally built as an alternative to the Boeing SST.  Boeing got smart and ended their program but by that time the British and French governments decided to keep going because of pride.  They were really only good for Paris/London-NYC since they couldn't go supersonic over land due to the booms.  The twin whammies of 9/11 and the Air France crash allowed British Airways and Air France to retire them.  Airbus, the successor to Aerospatiale, also quit providing maintenance support since with only 14 frames in service, it wasn't profitable.  

[ORNHOO]

 

 

 They were originally built as an alternative to the Boeing SST.  Boeing got smart and ended their program but by that time the British and French governments decided to keep going because of pride.  

 

Not so. The American SST program was started at the urging of President Kennedy in reaction to the announcement of the Concorde program. Federal funding of $100 million for fy1964 was approved only after Pan Am announced it had purchased options for Concordes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wili/Boeing_2707

 

[Overmod]

zugmann

No matter how many times you rebuild the amfleets - they still look like commuter coaches from the 1970s.

No matter how many times you rebuild an Amfleet, it still looks like a Metroliner from the 1960s that was built with the correct trucks.

The art -- as Joe was saying before everyone piled on him -- is in rebuilding them with proper interiors, nice leather (or even pleather) seating, plenty of power points of different types, fast WiFi connecting to fast Internet ... decent food, decent snacks, etc.  No one will mistake them for commuter coaches then.

You could improve the lateral compliance on the secondary springing if you wanted them to ride "better" than Acela, too; wouldn't be that hard.

One of Joe's main points in his original article was that if you have to spend $2.4 billion on trains whose chief benefits can't be realized during their operational lifetimes ... you might be better off rebuilding existing equipment qualified to run at what several people here already acknowledge as perfectly adequate top speed for a future Corridor, with a fraction of that money, to achieve things that I suspect a great majority of Corridor riders would appreciate more than shiny new Zefiros.

Heck, there might be money left over to fix the HHP-8s so they run properly at their design speed -- there's your Amfleet Acela right there.  But $2.4 billion might not be enough to accomplish that...

[zugmann]

Overmod

Heck, there might be money left over to fix the HHP-8s so they run properly at their design speed -- there's your Amfleet Acela right there. But $2.4 billion might not be enough to accomplish that... Wink

And you still have the same, boring crap that has been running the rails for decades.   People like new things.  People like modern and fresh things. Trying to cram dressed up old coaches down people's throats is what you do if you want people to continue to think of railroads as antiquated.

 

Too many people here view trains through railfan-colored glasses.

[243129]

Overmod

Heck, there might be money left over to fix the HHP-8s so they run properly at their design speed -- there's your Amfleet Acela right there. But $2.4 billion might not be enough to accomplish that..

The best 'fix' for the HHP-8's would be to relegate them to the junk pile where they could keep the E-60 company.

An AEM-7 like locomotive would be my choice to head the fleet so to speak.