Curtain Goes Down on US High Speed Rail

[jis]

The Cascades corridor does not have high-speed trains, for at least two reasons:

1. Curvature and rail crossings necessitate lower speeds.
2. At least between Portland and Seattle, there is also a lot of freight traffic.

For these two reasons alone, trains are limited to speeds below 80 mph, in some cases much lower. A parallel high-speed railway line would have to be built to significantly improve speeds there.

Curves most definitely have an impact on the speeds, but RR crossings have no impact on the speeds. Acela goes through crossings at speeds faster than 79 MPH. Yes, above a certain speed one needs Quad Gates or a center island to stop people from going around the gates, but in general crossings don't require that trains slow down for them.

There is at least one crossing on the Keystone corridor which is slated for elimination at which trains do pass by at 100mph. There are a couple of those on the New York - Albany line too.

 

[Trogdor]

The Cascades corridor does not have high-speed trains, for at least two reasons:

1. Curvature and rail crossings necessitate lower speeds.
2. At least between Portland and Seattle, there is also a lot of freight traffic.

For these two reasons alone, trains are limited to speeds below 80 mph, in some cases much lower. A parallel high-speed railway line would have to be built to significantly improve speeds there.

Curves most definitely have an impact on the speeds, but RR crossings have no impact on the speeds. Acela goes through crossings at speeds faster than 79 MPH. Yes, above a certain speed one needs Quad Gates or a center island to stop people from going around the gates, but in general crossings don't require that trains slow down for them.

Depends. If there are no gates, the speed is limited to 79 mph. Right now on the Amtrak Michigan Line, they are installing gates at certain crossings, to allow speeds of 95 mph+. Trains must slow down to 79 for those. I think requirements for quad gates start at 110, but I'm not 100% sure about that.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

If all it takes to reduce a train to 79MPH is a random crossing without gates then how on earth would a rural route like the Sunset limited ever exceed the current speed?

 

[Trogdor]

If all it takes to reduce a train to 79MPH is a random crossing without gates then how on earth would a rural route like the Sunset limited ever exceed the current speed?

1) Close the crossings.

2) I don't think anyone is proposing the Sunset Limited go above 79 mph.

 

[jis]

The Cascades corridor does not have high-speed trains, for at least two reasons:

1. Curvature and rail crossings necessitate lower speeds.
2. At least between Portland and Seattle, there is also a lot of freight traffic.

For these two reasons alone, trains are limited to speeds below 80 mph, in some cases much lower. A parallel high-speed railway line would have to be built to significantly improve speeds there.

Curves most definitely have an impact on the speeds, but RR crossings have no impact on the speeds. Acela goes through crossings at speeds faster than 79 MPH. Yes, above a certain speed one needs Quad Gates or a center island to stop people from going around the gates, but in general crossings don't require that trains slow down for them.

Depends. If there are no gates, the speed is limited to 79 mph. Right now on the Amtrak Michigan Line, they are installing gates at certain crossings, to allow speeds of 95 mph+. Trains must slow down to 79 for those. I think requirements for quad gates start at 110, but I'm not 100% sure about that.

Quad gates is upto 110. Beyond 110 you basically require impenetrable barriers like they have at airport secure area entrances. I am not aware of any grade crossing in this country where speeds higher than 110mph is allowed. The low end of speed for quad gate depends on various factors. For example when a locality requests quiet zone corridor status quad gates may be required for almost any speed. Montclair NJ is getting quad gates for quiet zone where the track speed limit is 50mph.

 

[Anderson]

If all it takes to reduce a train to 79MPH is a random crossing without gates then how on earth would a rural route like the Sunset limited ever exceed the current speed?

1) Close the crossings.

2) I don't think anyone is proposing the Sunset Limited go above 79 mph.

Well, for the one rural route that cracks 79 MPH...what of the SW Chief?

 

[Devil's Advocate]

If all it takes to reduce a train to 79MPH is a random crossing without gates then how on earth would a rural route like the Sunset limited ever exceed the current speed?

1) Close the crossings.

2) I don't think anyone is proposing the Sunset Limited go above 79 mph.

Well, for the one rural route that cracks 79 MPH...what of the SW Chief?

Good question. Does the SWC have to slow down every time it approaches an unprotected crossing? As for why this matters, if routes like the Sunset Limited can't ever hope to compete with the speed of personal vehicles then the long term viability of the route will remain in jeopardy, both in terms of dissuading potential ridership and giving anti-rail politicians yet another ready-made excuse to mock the passenger rail service in the media. I can tell you point-blank that ELP-SAS is about nine hours by car or around 30% longer at twelve hours via the Sunset Limited. ELP-AUS is about the same nine hours by car or a whopping twentyfour hours via the Texas Eagle. I know Amtrak has their hands tied until and unless they can find several hundred million dollars in free money to hand over to the Union Pacific bridge troll company, but if these times can't be improved then I think the Sunset Limited and the western half of the Texas Eagle are pretty much doomed.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

The Sunset Limiteds inability to compete with cars has more to do with Union Pacifics mishandling of the train (remember, 12 HOURS of padding was added to the schedule, and it remains there today) than anything approaching things like speed limits and grade crossings.

 

[George Harris]

Good question. Does the SWC have to slow down every time it approaches an unprotected crossing?

No

ELP-AUS is about the same nine hours by car or a whopping twentyfour hours via the Texas Eagle.

Much of that time is spent sitting in San Antonio. Also, the Austin - San Antonio time is very long due to the back up moves involved in reaching the station which is located on the ex Southern Pacific line, which does not and never did have a direct route to Austin. The direct Austin - San Antonio routes are ex Missoui Pacific (International Great Northern) and ex Missouri-kansas-Texas.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

No.

So at what speed do unprotected crossings actually come into play then?

Much of that time is spent sitting in San Antonio.

Is that supposed to make it less frustrating for potential customers or less ripe for political disparagement?

 

[PRR 60]

No.

So at what speed do unprotected crossings actually come into play then?

From the FRA:

The FRA’s goal for high-speed grade crossings is to achieve an acceptable level of grade crossing risk. Regulatory requirements for high-speed grade crossings are:
- For 110 mph or less: Grade crossings are permitted. States and railroads cooperate to determine the needed warning devices, including passive crossbucks, flashing lights, two quadrant gates (close only 'entering' lanes of road), long gate arms, median barriers, and various combinations. Lights and/or gates are activated by circuits wired to the track (track circuits).

- For 110-125 mph: FRA permits crossings only if an "impenetrable barrier" blocks highway traffic when train approaches.

- Above 125 mph, no crossings will be permitted.

FRA

 

[Anderson]

1) Is there any definition of "impenetrable barrier"? I mean...a semi doing 50 can easily blow through Jersey barriers.

2) On a lot of routes, 110 MPH is sufficient. You'll get average speeds that are slower, but there are plenty of routes where going faster needs electrification because of the limitations of diesel (turbines only being even theoretically viable if you were to run a long-distance few-or-no-stops Limited).

 

[George Harris]

. . . there are plenty of routes where going faster needs electrification because of the limitations of diesel (turbines only being even theoretically viable if you were to run a long-distance few-or-no-stops Limited).

This is not correct. The British "125" as in 125 mph diesel trainsets being an example that immediately comes to mind. These things have been running for years, apparently quite successfully. The 125 mph maximum does not mean the practical limit for diesel powered trains, but for the service conditions under which these trains are operated.

Turbines have been tried and successfully proven to be unreliable fuel hogs. How many times do we have to repeat the same mistakes?

A diesel locomotive does not have to be near as heavy as a standard American freight engine. The weight is beneficial for lugging capacity not needed in higher speed passenger service.

We should not be placing imaginary barriers, as in misconceptions concerning the limits of currently in place technology, in the way of increasing speeds.

 

[jis]

1) Is there any definition of "impenetrable barrier"? I mean...a semi doing 50 can easily blow through Jersey barriers.

2) On a lot of routes, 110 MPH is sufficient. You'll get average speeds that are slower, but there are plenty of routes where going faster needs electrification because of the limitations of diesel (turbines only being even theoretically viable if you were to run a long-distance few-or-no-stops Limited).

This is not correct. The British "125" as in 125 mph diesel trainsets being an example that immediately comes to mind. These things have been running for years, apparently quite successfully. The 125 mph maximum does not mean the practical limit for diesel powered trains, but for the service conditions under which these trains are operated.

We should not be placing imaginary barriers, as in misconceptions concerning the limits of currently in place technology, in the way of increasing speeds.

George is absolutely correct. The Brits have been successfully running diesel trains at 125 mph for a while. The diesel InterCity 125s in UK have been running since the late 70s to early 80s at 125 mph. Each set consists of two Class 43 power heads originally powered by Paxman Valenta prime movers, and a variable number of Mark 3 cars. Recently the Class 43s have been re-engined with more powerful 2250bhp (1678kW) MTU 16V 4000 engines, and are still going strong after all these years.

In addition there are now the Bombardier Voyager DMUs Class 220, Super Voyager Class 221 (operated by Virgin), and Meridian Class 222 (operated by several other TOCs) which run at 125mph using underfloor 750hp Cummins engines. And there is Alstom's diesel electric version of the Coradia (Class 175 and Class 180 Adelente) which also run at 125 mph.

Bombardier and Virgin are working on a plan to convert the Voyagers into DEMUs by adding a "pantograph car" to each set which will carry a pantograph and a main transformer to feed traction power to the train so that they can operate off the catenary in electrified sections and use their diesel engines in non-electrified territory.

There is absolutely no reason that a diesel train set or locomotive could not be built that could run at 125 mph or even 140mph. The top speed attained by the InterCity 125s is 148mph during trial runs. So this whole business about theoretically impossible is just not so.

BTW, and impenetrable barrier that would apparently be acceptable would be like those that rise up from the road as found at entry points into the protected areas of airport, except they have to rise higher above the road possibly. Properly designed and engineered there is no semi that can get across those. Only the top bit of the semi might make it through if it tried very very hard, and managed to detach itself from the bottom. But I would imagine that anyone would have to be insane to basically run themselves into a brightly lit steel wall.

In any case by the time all is said and done it is probably cheaper to build an overpass, so I don't expect to see these contraptions used at grade crossing anytime soon.

 

[Anderson]

I stand corrected on the diesels; with that said, I was under the distinct impression (raised in one of the discussions about the MW HSR projects) that diesel burnout was a major problem once you crossed a certain ballpark speed, at least with extant models. It's not that you can't run a diesel at those speeds...it's that doing so starts burning out the engines at a fast enough pace to add significantly to the cost. To be fair, the discussion may have been referring to a set of models in particular, but I know you can run engines faster and faster...it's just that the cost from having to replace parts starts to skyrocket sooner or later, and it becomes far less cost-effective.

As to the turbines, my reference was specifically to the fuel hog issue: As I understand it, the problem is that 2/3 of the fuel consumption happens whether the engine is in park or at full speed...hence the reference to it being used only on extremely limited stop routes (of which we really don't have any...this would be an old "20th Century Limited" sort of schedule, with very few (if any) intermediate stops) as the only way to make it workable.

Edit:

http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/35615-express-trains-fewer-stops/page__p__265428__hl__turbines__fromsearch__1#entry265428

This is where it came up: GML referred to 110MPH being a practical limit. Now, obviously BR's experience with the Intercity125 knocks that out of the water (though to be perfectly honest, I thought that more of BR's stuff had been electrified, at least on the ECML...and yes, I know the WCML isn't electrified), but that also does seem to be near the top end. The fact that an engine got up to a very high speed in testing does not mean that such operation is practical on a day-to-day basis.

 

[jis]

http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/35615-express-trains-fewer-stops/page__p__265428__hl__turbines__fromsearch__1#entry265428

This is where it came up: GML referred to 110MPH being a practical limit. Now, obviously BR's experience with the Intercity125 knocks that out of the water (though to be perfectly honest, I thought that more of BR's stuff had been electrified, at least on the ECML...and yes, I know the WCML isn't electrified), but that also does seem to be near the top end. The fact that an engine got up to a very high speed in testing does not mean that such operation is practical on a day-to-day basis.

Actaully WCML is also electrified all the way from London Euston to Glasgow Central, and additionally several branches and alternate routing in the Midlands. The equipment used there is electric Alstom Pendolions (Class 390) which use a Fiat Tilt system, capable of 140mph, but currently limited to 125mph due to track and signaling issues. Incidentally the Bombardier Super Voyager DMUs are also equipped with tilt capability.

The InterCity 125s are used mostly on the Great Western, Cross Country and through London to Scotland day trains. The Caledonian Sleepers to Scotland are still a loco hauled train. I agree that a specific trains which is designed for daily operation at 125 mph may be able to run at 145 mph, but does not mean that it is suitable for daily operation at that speed.

But one needs to realize that the issue is not how fast the diesel prime mover is running but how much power is needed to get upto whatever the design speed is and stay there, and whether that can be delivered from the prime mover which weighs within reasonable limits, while it is operating within its design range. The high speed diesel trains generally do not use the classical diesel prime mover like the EMD 710. They use light weight higher speed engines, and in DMUs they use essentially large truck engines. The Paxman Valenta I understand was originally designed for use as a marine engine on medium crafts.Technically all these power units resemble what are called Genset engines these days, rather than classic freight or passenger diesel electrics,

The point being made is we are quite far from the technical limits of what can be done with diesel. There are other issues like rate of acceleration, weight, efficiency etc. that starts gravitating against the use of diesel as the max speed increases. That is the reason that I believe there is no large general operation of diesel above 125mph AFAIK.

But then again the original point being discussed was if diesel service is possible at 125mph as a practical proposition, and the answer is an emphatic yes though it is also true that FRA pigheadedness in the US may make trains too heavy to require more power to operate them than elsewhere in the world. For example, 750hp per car would most likely be insufficient for US operations at 125 mph. But a train with two dual genset powerheads each delivering ~4200 hp each, a-la what is in the ALP45-DP with proper gearing, should be quite capable of doing a decent job with a 6 car set like the Acela as a Tier I set which would be lighter than the Acelas are. Specially more so if the HEP load was offloaded to a pony engine thus leaving the entire power of the prime movers available for traction use.

It also looks like all that is being said in this thread was already mentioned in the other thread, though with less information on specific examples.

 

[Anderson]

I think there's one other question to seriously consider, and it's not an unrealistic one: How much less life do lightweight cars have versus heavier cars? I'm comparing the lifetimes of some of the cars in the Heritage fleet (some of which have been in service for over sixty years, though I don't know what the maintenance costs look like for them) and the mention that heavier cars tend to be more long-lived, with possible lifetimes for lighter stuff. How are the lifetimes on the European fleet?

 

[jis]

I think there's one other question to seriously consider, and it's not an unrealistic one: How much less life do lightweight cars have versus heavier cars? I'm comparing the lifetimes of some of the cars in the Heritage fleet (some of which have been in service for over sixty years, though I don't know what the maintenance costs look like for them) and the mention that heavier cars tend to be more long-lived, with possible lifetimes for lighter stuff. How are the lifetimes on the European fleet?

I am not sure that weight has a lot to do with longevity. Quality of construction and materials has more to do with it. Also the conditions under which they are operated and how well they are maintained also matter. I don't know if there is a general number representing longevity of European cars in a meaningful way. They like us have some duds and some spectacular successes.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

The Acelas are generally considered to be in worse shape than the Amfleet IIs among Amtrak's service people. Despite the fact that the Acelas are extremely heavy, and, really, because of it.

 

[Anderson]

The Acelas are generally considered to be in worse shape than the Amfleet IIs among Amtrak's service people. Despite the fact that the Acelas are extremely heavy, and, really, because of it.

Ok, again I stand corrected (I really am an outsider to a lot of this stuff). I was under the impression, probably mistaken, that the construction techniques that shifted from the old heavyweight designs to newer, lighter designs involved changes to the design that caused trouble with longevity for the cars in question. Of course, just a general decline in quality can always be looked at as a possible cause (as seems to be the case rather frequently, quality and time have an annoying inverse relationship on so many things).

 

[Green Maned Lion]

The Acelas are generally considered to be in worse shape than the Amfleet IIs among Amtrak's service people. Despite the fact that the Acelas are extremely heavy, and, really, because of it.

Ok, again I stand corrected (I really am an outsider to a lot of this stuff). I was under the impression, probably mistaken, that the construction techniques that shifted from the old heavyweight designs to newer, lighter designs involved changes to the design that caused trouble with longevity for the cars in question. Of course, just a general decline in quality can always be looked at as a possible cause (as seems to be the case rather frequently, quality and time have an annoying inverse relationship on so many things).

First of all, the idea that all older cars were high quality is mistaken. There is a reason that of the many thousands of cars Amtrak inherited, almost all of the cars not built by Edward G. Budd Company of Philadelphia were retired within a few years. By the early 90s, only a very small handful of St. Louis Car Company, AC&F, and Pullman-Standard cars were still in service.

Edward G. Budd created a mechanism called shot-welding for building things out of stainless steel. The cars built by Budd were very expensive by the standards of other rail cars of the day. Budd built cars well, under the competition that slowly allowed them to dismantle the Pullman system. Budd continued to build cars well, and Budd body shells have remained in service for a very long period of time. Budd went out of business almost 25 years ago, yet Amtrak's fleet remains predominantly Budd (All heritage cars, as well as the Amfleets and the AEM-7 engine cowlings).

715 Budd-built cars, 277 Bombardier, 254 Pullman-Standard, 120 Alstom-Bombardier, 116 Morrison-Knudson, 67 Talgo, 61 Alstom, and 9 St. Louis Car Company.

Newer cars, built as government-contract cars by a limited number of manufacturers who compete almost entirely on price are a different ballgame.

 

[George Harris]

Newer cars, built as government-contract cars by a limited number of manufacturers who compete almost entirely on price are a different ballgame.

The thing that happens to a lot of good designs in this grossly misnamed process called "value engineering" The VE concept is to reduce the cost without reducing the value of the finished product. The reality is drive down the cost as far as possible without rendering the product useless. A reduced product life expectancy is analyzed on a present worth basis which means for a long lived product a few extra years has very little present worth.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Actually, the idea is to reduce the cost, increase the profit, and reduce the lifespan so the suckers have the buy again soon. But I digress. I am way too cynical for my 26 years.

 

[leemell]

Actually, the idea is to reduce the cost, increase the profit, and reduce the lifespan so the suckers have the buy again soon. But I digress. I am way too cynical for my 26 years.

Despite your engineer status, you are clearly no engineer. George Harris is and I was until I retired. There are an enormous number of trade-offs made during design, and nearly all affect each other in some way. The design space is so large there frequently is no definitive way to find the optimal solution. Many times design requirement changes will impact the finished product in very unexpected ways. And yes, without profit, there will be no product.

Reducing the design life of a product is sometimes a desirable thing, how many people would still use the Motorola "brick" if it was still viable? Any remaning life was wasted cost in design and build.

 

[Anderson]

715 Budd-built cars, 277 Bombardier, 254 Pullman-Standard, 120 Alstom-Bombardier, 116 Morrison-Knudson, 67 Talgo, 61 Alstom, and 9 St. Louis Car Company.

Is this the current fleet makeup?

Also, with respect to "Value Engineering", I guess the question then is "What specs is Amtrak putting out for their bids?"