Joe: Quite good!! Some of us might quibble about details, such as greater emphasis on cognitive abilities such as sustained attention in the vetting, but overall I like it and the tone is restrained.
+1
243129 Overmod Part of the problem is that they're (perhaps arrogantly) of the opinion they already know better and don't need to listen. In my dealings with them that is absolutely their mindset. Overmod And that such people really need to listen more, and more carefully, than people without such an attitude . That attitude was not present until they gave it to me. Overmod Confrontation is not the method likely to work. Perhaps not but the smoochie, smoochie posterior kissing inflections( how distasteful) don't work either. Overmod The first best place to start with the planning is to start with the training, They were given a presentation wanna see it? Here it is: Hiring and Training Template for Train and Engine Service EmployeesAmtrak is rife with inexperience from top to bottom. Since it's inception Amtrak, eschewing the knowledge and experience of the veteran workforce it inherited in the 1983takeover of operations on the Northeast Corridor (NEC), has used hit and miss trial and error tactics and nowhere is it more apparent than in their hiring and training procedures which have resulted in many incidents , most notably the incidents in Philadelphia involving the 'wrong way train' and the tragedy at Frankford Junction which could quite possibly have been avoided through vetting and proper training by experienced operations personnel not those of questionable pedigree that Amtrak chooses to employ.That being said I have a template for hiring and training of operations personnel. It is a comprehensive and multifaceted program.I have experienced operations personnel for an oversight committee made up of seasoned T&E veterans which can also screen prospective candidates, advise instructors, conduct field testing and evaluate trainees. Seasoned operations veterans can better assess the acumen for train operations a candidate possesses than a non experienced in operations Human Resources employee.Physical ability. Candidates must be able to pass a physical agility screening. How can one assist in an evacuation situation if that person cannot safely and without assistance evacuate themselves?OJT, OJT and more OJT. Nothing beats on the job training. Real time situations with the accompanying conditions in all classes of service. Basic rules at the outset, more instruction midway, intense instruction at the end of OJT to be followed by final examination. All instruction on rules and special instructions are to be tailored to situations on the division for which hired. This way there is a mental picture when applying the rules. No 'generic' rules situations. Physical characteristics for engineers are extremely important and candidate must exhibit intimate knowledge of such. Testing will be conducted by veteran engineers with 35 or more years of experience in all classes of service.Train handling for engineers, which I suspect is one of the culprits in the recent rash of crude oil derailments, instruction should be intense and evaluated strictly.Car handling for train service candidates should be extensive and equally intense.Present operating employees and supervision, most of who are 'victims' of Amtrak's inadequate training program, would be subject to evaluation and field testing and if need be assigned to other duties should they not measure up. No loss of job to present employees. Create a new position for those who cannot attain the standards for participating in train operations i.e. “ticket taker” where the individual would only be involved in collecting revenue and have nothing to do with train operations. They can observe operations and benefit with what would be considered 'paid training'. Seniority would be preserved in the craft from which they came should they be able to pass the required exams/tests at a later time.Amtrak must shed their arrogance and acknowledge their shortcomings and yield to the willing assistance from seasoned active and retired operations employees.Amtrak in it's present state is an accident waiting to happen.
Overmod Part of the problem is that they're (perhaps arrogantly) of the opinion they already know better and don't need to listen.
In my dealings with them that is absolutely their mindset.
Overmod And that such people really need to listen more, and more carefully, than people without such an attitude .
That attitude was not present until they gave it to me.
Overmod Confrontation is not the method likely to work.
Perhaps not but the smoochie, smoochie posterior kissing inflections( how distasteful) don't work either.
Overmod The first best place to start with the planning is to start with the training,
They were given a presentation wanna see it?
Here it is:
Hiring and Training Template for Train and Engine Service EmployeesAmtrak is rife with inexperience from top to bottom. Since it's inception Amtrak, eschewing the knowledge and experience of the veteran workforce it inherited in the 1983takeover of operations on the Northeast Corridor (NEC), has used hit and miss trial and error tactics and nowhere is it more apparent than in their hiring and training procedures which have resulted in many incidents , most notably the incidents in Philadelphia involving the 'wrong way train' and the tragedy at Frankford Junction which could quite possibly have been avoided through vetting and proper training by experienced operations personnel not those of questionable pedigree that Amtrak chooses to employ.That being said I have a template for hiring and training of operations personnel. It is a comprehensive and multifaceted program.I have experienced operations personnel for an oversight committee made up of seasoned T&E veterans which can also screen prospective candidates, advise instructors, conduct field testing and evaluate trainees. Seasoned operations veterans can better assess the acumen for train operations a candidate possesses than a non experienced in operations Human Resources employee.Physical ability. Candidates must be able to pass a physical agility screening. How can one assist in an evacuation situation if that person cannot safely and without assistance evacuate themselves?OJT, OJT and more OJT. Nothing beats on the job training. Real time situations with the accompanying conditions in all classes of service. Basic rules at the outset, more instruction midway, intense instruction at the end of OJT to be followed by final examination. All instruction on rules and special instructions are to be tailored to situations on the division for which hired. This way there is a mental picture when applying the rules. No 'generic' rules situations. Physical characteristics for engineers are extremely important and candidate must exhibit intimate knowledge of such. Testing will be conducted by veteran engineers with 35 or more years of experience in all classes of service.Train handling for engineers, which I suspect is one of the culprits in the recent rash of crude oil derailments, instruction should be intense and evaluated strictly.Car handling for train service candidates should be extensive and equally intense.Present operating employees and supervision, most of who are 'victims' of Amtrak's inadequate training program, would be subject to evaluation and field testing and if need be assigned to other duties should they not measure up. No loss of job to present employees. Create a new position for those who cannot attain the standards for participating in train operations i.e. “ticket taker” where the individual would only be involved in collecting revenue and have nothing to do with train operations. They can observe operations and benefit with what would be considered 'paid training'. Seniority would be preserved in the craft from which they came should they be able to pass the required exams/tests at a later time.Amtrak must shed their arrogance and acknowledge their shortcomings and yield to the willing assistance from seasoned active and retired operations employees.Amtrak in it's present state is an accident waiting to happen.
Firefox is free and doesn't bother one too much with upgrade sales. Ditto Chrome that comes with Windows. I used Opera, but I got tired of continually being bothered by insistance that I would be much better off it I upgraded to their professional version. The insistance occured even when I was using Chrome or Firefox. When and if my financial position improves, I'll return to them.
243129For some reason I am not allowed to reply to private messages. Glitch?
Likely your browser choice. No modern version of Firefox lets you actually type text into the response box -- even though it's there, and active, until the last part of the code loads.
I recommend, as a workaround, installing the Opera browser (which, interestingly, is the last thing actually workable on Mac systems earlier than 10.7); www.opera.com
You don't have to use this as your 'primary' browser, and it happily coexists with other browser sessions (in my experience, at least with Edge, Internet Exploiter, and Firefox -- I don't believe in the boogeyman or Chrome). On a personal note, don't go for Opera Neon no matter how attractive they make it sound unless you're a gamer or under the age of 14... it has some fun features but lacks inherent controls that have long been considered essential for browsing...
I now routinely use Opera whenever I have to access or write a PM. I do continue to wait for Kalmbach and Mozilla to work out a solution ... but the key words are 'continue to wait'.
For some reason I am not allowed to reply to private messages. Glitch?
OvermodPart of the problem is that they're (perhaps arrogantly) of the opinion they already know better and don't need to listen.
OvermodConfrontation is not the method likely to work.
OvermodThe first best place to start with the planning is to start with the training,
charlie hebdo I'm not going to dispute your beliefs. Most of us know better. In the name of civility, I will leave it at that.
I'm not going to dispute your beliefs. Most of us know better. In the name of civility, I will leave it at that.
"Us"???
charlie hebdo 243129 charlie hebdo German RoW is much better than ours. I agree. Their "RoW", courtesy of the Marshall Plan, dates from the late 1940's early 1950's ours dates from the mid to late 1800's. No contest. The reasons why? No comment beyond what former member Cooker Landwehr made abundantly and factually clear months ago.
243129 charlie hebdo German RoW is much better than ours. I agree. Their "RoW", courtesy of the Marshall Plan, dates from the late 1940's early 1950's ours dates from the mid to late 1800's. No contest.
charlie hebdo German RoW is much better than ours.
I agree. Their "RoW", courtesy of the Marshall Plan, dates from the late 1940's early 1950's ours dates from the mid to late 1800's. No contest.
The reasons why? No comment beyond what former member Cooker Landwehr made abundantly and factually clear months ago.
Show where he proved that the pre WW II ROW was restored with no improvements in location. He did not, you cannot.
243129I agree. Their "RoW", courtesy of the Marshall Plan, dates from the late 1940's early 1950's ours dates from the mid to late 1800's. No contest.
What about the right of way in Britain? They have fast trains, if not true HSR, operating on rights of way at least as old as ours.
The reasons why? No comment beyond what former member Volker Landwehr made abundantly and factually clear months ago.
charlie hebdoGerman RoW is much better than ours.
I will simply say this: given the choice on very smooth VHSR RoW* or lower speed smooth stretches* in Germany, I'd rather ride an ICE-3 trainset than an IC with loose cars.
German RoW is much better than ours.
At what cost?
York1 John
There is what can be an unforseen problem with more 160 MPH sections. The 125 MPH regionals will have to be switched to outer tracks to get out of the way of the 160 MPH trains. That will slightly decrease overall train capacity especially on sections that have heavy commuter traffic.
All our posters must remember is that a way to decrease overall in transit time is to eliminate slow sections of any route. Imagine the decrease in time if Frankfort junction to north PHL was all 160 MPH capable. As well the slower sections south of PHL including Baltimore's tunnel and replacing the 2 track bridges with 4 main track bridges. The tunnel MAS is 30 MPH and the bridges have various MAS as low as 60 MPH.
The Cheapest way to decrease running times south of PHL will be making all the sections 4 main tracks between the bridges and tunnel , easing the curves while building the 4 main track sections, and constant tension CAT. However the bridges and tunnel may not be able to wait for the cheaper projects to be done first?.
Remember that for each slower speed section that is eliminated the operational cost is decreased for all trains that are not having to slow and then accelerate using more electricity than running at constant speeds.
The speed capability of higher than 160 MPH probably would on be possible from Newark to Trenton with the following.
1. eliminating the Elizabeth "S" curve
2. completely replacing the undergrade under tracks to eliminate seasonal heaving problems. That would require installing sheet piles between tracks to allow removing the undergrade material then replacing it with proper materials for extra high speed trains.
CMStPnPNo I think you need to read more on the issue. They tilt on curves as they include Pendalino technology from Europe.
That's "Pendolino" to you. As you would know if you were familiar with Acela, the Bombardier trains were designed with active tilt, but portions of the Corridor don't prevent potential 'interference' between passing tilted trains, even assuming normal correction and not the worst case of mutually opposed maximum-tilt lock. So the tilt exists, but was not made active, and yes, this had an influence on the trip times the equipment could produce in service.
Something I have not seen is whether the tilt system in the Avelia Liberty sets has 'corrected' this situation enough to be useful in negotiating 'enough curves faster' to make a measurable or significant improvement in either section or overall timing. To my knowledge the Pendolino system still involves sufficient throwout to pose similar interference as the earlier Acela system; you would need an approach like the multiple-lever cradle on the original APT to get enough 'roll' of the passenger seats relative to the trucks without actively using 'pendulum action' with a high actual or virtual pivot location.
The trains also can accelerate and decelerate faster than the current trainsets.
That is nice to note, but can you tell us how much faster? And, from there, give us the actual expected timing reductions from this over the various segments of Corridor running? I'd suspect it's measured in no more than a few minutes, against which you might need to factor the cost of any additional net electrical power or improvements to the supply infrastructure -- not that those aren't already needed, including more wayside storage capacity.
Part of the point of these issues is that much, much more was spent on the Avelia Liberties than was needed to get tilt for practical speeds, and comparable acceleration to practical speeds, alone. And again, not that such equipment won't be necessary when the NECIP proceeds to reasonable completion -- only that the service life of these trains will almost certainly be 'up' by the time NECIP work has gotten the Corridor in shape to use the advantages 'bought and paid for' with the extra money.
CMStPnPYes it is worth $2 Billion if the cost recovery of all the trainsets exceed the purchase price over their lifespan.
But his argument was different: how about if the cost recovery of the alternative trainsets equally exceeded their purchase price over their lifespan -- which I think would be easy to guarantee with the right mix of structure and amenities -- and you still had the $2 billion of present value either to invest or to use in additional more-meaningful amenities.
It is not a matter of being shortsighted or of shortchanging the future; if Gateway, Portal, the Baltimore work and the constant-tension buildout were all well in hand by now, it would make increasing sense to buy the 'best-in-class' for your premier service even if you could only intermittently use its technology as intended. But you still have what is mostly a 125mph-at-best railroad, with significant congestion, with little practical prospect of either achieving VHSR or blocking out traffic patterns to optimize its capacity for trip-time reduction.
243129 ... perhaps just perhaps they might take up the challenge and listen.
Part of the problem is that they're (perhaps arrogantly) of the opinion they already know better and don't need to listen. And that such people really need to listen more, and more carefully, than people without such an attitude ... which of course leads to an evaluation of the methods that will get them listening, and then taking action on what they hear.
Confrontation is not the method likely to work. Neither is dictating how wrong they are and how things need to be changed right away. (I suspect Amtrak is well aware how suboptimal their engineer-training performance is, but they think more piled-higher-and-deeper buzzword methodology will surely fix it... this time around.)
The first best place to start with the planning is to start with the training, and the 'presentation collateral'. You need to develop a document that shows with actual technology and actual numbers how small the time savings is, the things that are truly important to get riders to pay a premium fare for service determined both from actual and prospective cohorts of riders, the chartable progress of the things mentioned in NECIP (carefully including the note that funding for many of these hasn't even been finalized yet) and some hard estimates of both rebuilding expense and new PRIIA-compatible 125mph alternative equipment.
Then you'll be ready to say 'here's a way to ramp up to increased operating profitability for Amtrak, subsidizing the necessary long-distance network, with the following important details' -- and take it on the road. Trade-press and media articles, more letters (but now promoting positive examples rather than bewailing waste), information packages to 'industry pundits' and similar opinion makers that legislators and politicians read with interest ... get the message out that money's on the table, and you'll likely either get someone with access to 'bite', or get them to invent the same approach on their own ... which gives the same result in low expense and better service; it doesn't matter if you get compensation or even fair credit for the effort.
I would also repeat that the 'best' first step toward addressing the Amtrak engineer training issue is to design an example program to train them, complete with expected resource list. (And yes, here being a nattering nabob of negativism is completely appropriate, so long as you have explicit alternatives that are more positive...)
This becomes particularly important because when the Avelias come into service, I suspect they will not have their full speed or acceleration capability locked down, and there will need to be additional (and perhaps remedial!) training conducted for anyone expected to run them -- which, knowing Amtrak, would otherwise be anyone qualified on the Corridor who has seen the Avelia orientation video.
So getting in near the ground floor, and developing training for the high-speed trains, should rapidly put you in a position of working with, and hopefully influencing, people in the direct engineer-training program not to 'straighten up and fly right' but to start implementing the right attitudes to do so. And then have collateral to implement training based on the right attitude, and then keep skills sharp, establish communities of mutual engineer support on the Right Stuff, get safety training over to the unions where it belongs, and the other things that will make this a better part of the world.
OvermodI'm not going to say Joe should stop commenting on the 'waste'. But it would be nice if he could comment on how he plans to ensure that 'the next time' funds to be used for Amtrak are in fact better spent.
I would use the words of Colonel Jessup to the Congressional Budget Committee were I to gain a platform there (not likely). "You want the truth?" "You can't handle the truth" and perhaps just perhaps they might take up the challenge and listen.
243129Because the money has already been spent does that make the expenditure okay?
No, but it makes further discussion about the money largely moot, and opens would-be discussers 'even so' to the charge that it no longer matters, but they'll keep going anyway.
I'm not sure that, given the necessary 'politics', a functionally-egregious use of taxpayer dollars for 'technology to match the Europeans and Asians' won't happen again. (Of course you can bet your bippy the folks touting the tech won't say how useful it is; look at the speedups on the "110mph" Amtrak speedups for a similar example, but at least it was spent on nice trains that will get the possible job done with most every seat full on every train. Closely tied to the issue of financing for 'cutting-edge HSR') is a question I think I raised back when the horse was at least still twitching: would that money have been allocated or spent on the 'alternatives' Joe as the letter writer or I as a critic would say represent a better use of that sum?
Personally, I almost can't imagine it would be (or what would happen if it were, and other critics started to allege the multibillion spend was for fancier Web surfing but no meaningful 'transportation' gains and no future HSR potential). To get that problem "OK" would involve massive, and currently unlikely and impossible, changes in the evolved American political structure.
I'm not going to say Joe should stop commenting on the 'waste'. But it would be nice if he could comment on how he plans to ensure that 'the next time' funds to be used for Amtrak are in fact better spent.
Remember that I agree with most of his letter points, and I do think if 2.4 billion could be appropriated for 'Acela follow-on trains' it should have been used as he indicated, for more units of less-sophisticated (but still fast and reliable) equipment, and better or more attractive and attractively-marketed passenger amenities. At this point it's shoulda-woulda-coulda unless you want to open a can of worms and try to get the contract voided, with penalties thrown down the hole of waste ... and the discussion has shifted to how to get the less-expensive trains built for inherently "slower" regular services to be accelerated and made more attractive so they will, in their turn, start to show more above-the-rails profitability per 'turn'...
charlie hebdo Poster child for equine savagery. https://images.app.goo.gl/8siSXgNA3XthPphv5
Poster child for equine savagery.
https://images.app.goo.gl/8siSXgNA3XthPphv5
Oh O.K. billions are being wasted on something that was and is not feasible and ho-hum it's done so time to move on. Those billions are taxpayer dollars that are being wasted and you want to put it aside with no argument to ensure that it does not happen again ?
This from 2017
https://www.nhregister.com/opinion/article/Forum-High-speed-train-travel-is-not-feasible-on-11310852.php
Part of this is once again beating a dead horse. Speculating about possible refurbishing or other options for Acela or Amfleet is worthwhile, IMO.
It is called a SUNK COST.
OvermodI don't see the point of continuing the discussion about the Avelia being a 'waste' of money after the money has been spent, though.
"What is the point of spending these taxpayer dollars for no discernible improvement?" the letter writer asks.
What is the point?
How can such an outlay be justified?
Was there any research done as to the wisdom/feasibility of buying more trains for high speeds they will never attain?
If the traveling public is in that much of a hurry the SST would still be operating.
Because the money has already been spent does that make the expenditure okay?
243129"Irrelevant"? Humor me, answer the question(s).
Seems to me the Acelas usually run full, or nearly so. Certainly the professionals that use them have some idea of the 'value' of the speed/time "gain", if that is a factor, or don't consider its relatively-small differential over ordinary Amtrak service to be important enough not to expense the premium amount.
But this is not the issue. Joe posed a very specific alternative to the Avelia sets: trains that had equal or better physical amenities (in other words, the 'stuff' inside the car shells) but were built to currently-achievable, or reasonably 'predictable', NEC top speeds for the anticipated life of the equipment. He subsequently has been raising an alternative: providing the same level of amenity and service as a new Avelia train in older (and probably costed-down) conventional Amtrak loose-car structure. (I'd be highly interested to see how much of the current 'business class' patronage would pay a premium fare amount for 'the same comforts' specifically including better broadband connectivity, with only the time differential being the difference between it and Acela service; this would be a comparatively easy test to run on a limited basis.)
I don't see the point of continuing the discussion about the Avelia being a 'waste' of money after the money has been spent, though. Whether it was or not, we're getting them, and they will stand or fall (hopefully succeed wildly) on their perceivable merits and the marketing and incentives provided for them.
The discussion now changes to the best 'next-rank' improvements that could be made in the Corridor, and there are two broad (and not mutually exclusive) options here -- for example, assessing the question of 'replace or renew' the Amfleet 1 cars. On the one hand, there's improving the quality of the accommodations -- better seating, more snack and food options, more kinds of connectivity or services, and the like. On the other hand, there's incrementing the speed as NECIP facilitates faster running, but this might not involve "top speed" beyond actual PRIIA design spec, as there is the same general gulf between 125mph and 150mph that characterized the differences between the HST and the APT in Britain. I have long been of the opinion that proper non-interfering 'negative cant deficiency' (tilt) could allow enough incremental speed increase (or reduce the effect of permanent slows) to give the promised kind of time reduction without recourse to politically-unpalatable reduction of 'express' stops. Was this not something the X2000 actually demonstrated before the whole Bombardier fiasco?
Incidentally one of the places a 'semi-permanently coupled' trainset is better than 'loose car' is when active tilt of older designs is in use. It was certainly possible thirty years ago to design loose-car tilt in conjunction with HEP that would be fully predictive by sensing each car's position in the train and timing the tilt initiation progressively through properly-redundant communications. The state of the art allows much more robust and far cheaper solutions of that kind now. Part of the problem is that no one wants to spend the time and the money on optimizing relative slowness when the perceived world market for this sort of technology moved upward from 186mph two decades or more ago.
blue streak 1 Are Acela-1s a one offf product ? As such parts are manfactured discontinued, expensive to replicate, less than quickly available, etc ? Train sets especially HSR are changing so fast that parts are obsolete before the sets wear out. Wonder if operating cost for the new sets will be less than A-1 s with the A-2s carrying more seats. Didn't Amtrak say that additional cars for A1s would cost more than brand new A-2s ?
Are Acela-1s a one offf product ? As such parts are manfactured discontinued, expensive to replicate, less than quickly available, etc ? Train sets especially HSR are changing so fast that parts are obsolete before the sets wear out.
Wonder if operating cost for the new sets will be less than A-1
s with the A-2s carrying more seats. Didn't Amtrak say that additional cars for A1s would cost more than brand new A-2s ?
If they did, find the citation?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.