Amtrak doesn't need souped up diesels to go 110 MPH. The entire fleet of P42 engines, the current work horse for Amtrak, are all capable of running at 110 without any modifications.
Why won't HSR be run by Amtrak?
- Thread starter birdy
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
- Status
Green Maned Lion
Engineer
Sure. Evolution will pick up the pace a bit as the fools stupid enough to not stop for trains at grade crossing removed from the gene pool and the people who do stop are naturally selected to continue procreating the human race.
There is always going to be a cost if you want to run faster, maybe full barriers rather than half barriers might go some way to reduce the amount of idiots who want to adorn the front of a P42.
Bit of a difference though, isn't there? TGV Duplex is designed as a high speed people mover which it does very well, 545 seats compared to the Acela's 300. Seat spacing is all very well, but if you can stretch your legs out on a TGV in any class, then anymore spacing than that is just wasting space really. Its all very well giving an illusion of luxury by pitching the seats about 30 yards apart, but there is also a need to maximise revenue.
VentureForth
Engineer
What's the advantage of a loco pulled set (ie: Acela/TGV) over an EMU (ie: Shinkansen)? How many passenger coaches are on the TGV? Shinkansen has 16, with a capacity of 1,324 passengers in two classes.
As I've mentioned already here before, Amtrak's focus needs to be on how to properly run a steel-wheel system, maximizing revenue on the Acela by running longer trainsets as opposed to more trains. Of course, being a contiguous trainset, this is not easily done. It can be done, but with great stress, anxiety and taxing on the maintenance infrastructure. It wouldn't be a bad idea, I don't suppose, if they would just mount two trainsets together with the inability to walk through the entire trainset. Of course, there aren't any spares to effectively do that. There should never be any sold out Acela trains (or trains less than 80% capacity) except on holidays.
Amtrak needs to find a new builder for the NEC equipment and find them fast. They should look into Kawasaki, in my humble opinion. Of course, they could probably never afford them...
As for FRA standards, there is a limit to which you can design a solid body before the contents flying around in a collision are worse than the structural damage to the lead loco. The first priority is to reduce the potential for accidents. The Shinkansen would probably never pass FRA impact standards, but have had less fatalities than on the NEC.
By the way, Herzog is a pretty reputable management and operations company. They've done a great job with the TRE and the NM Railrunner. But NONE of today's commuter operators, including Amtrak, are equipped to handle true HSR.
As I've mentioned already here before, Amtrak's focus needs to be on how to properly run a steel-wheel system, maximizing revenue on the Acela by running longer trainsets as opposed to more trains. Of course, being a contiguous trainset, this is not easily done. It can be done, but with great stress, anxiety and taxing on the maintenance infrastructure. It wouldn't be a bad idea, I don't suppose, if they would just mount two trainsets together with the inability to walk through the entire trainset. Of course, there aren't any spares to effectively do that. There should never be any sold out Acela trains (or trains less than 80% capacity) except on holidays.
Amtrak needs to find a new builder for the NEC equipment and find them fast. They should look into Kawasaki, in my humble opinion. Of course, they could probably never afford them...
As for FRA standards, there is a limit to which you can design a solid body before the contents flying around in a collision are worse than the structural damage to the lead loco. The first priority is to reduce the potential for accidents. The Shinkansen would probably never pass FRA impact standards, but have had less fatalities than on the NEC.
By the way, Herzog is a pretty reputable management and operations company. They've done a great job with the TRE and the NM Railrunner. But NONE of today's commuter operators, including Amtrak, are equipped to handle true HSR.
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
In my experience I could not stretch my legs in TGV second class. TGV seats are anything but comfortable. But your point is taken that if something is meant to be a high speed subway, the seats need not be much better than they are, and yes, TGVs move people very well.
Last edited by a moderator:
VentureForth
Engineer
Hee hee - just found out how much Kawasaki charges JR for a 16-car trainset: JP¥5 Billion or US$52.2 MIL.
How much did the Bombardier sets cost?
How much did the Bombardier sets cost?
IIRC, US track regs require Quad gates for speeds over 90 MPH. Over 125 MPH no grade crossings are permitted.
Fewer parts to replace and repair. Especially here in the US, EMU is considered a locomotive and therefore has higher and more frequent inspection requirements than does trailer coaches.
You can forget linking to Acela sets together. In addition to a myriad of other problems, the deal breaker is the fact that two sets linked together would have a top speed of 25 MPH. Limitations with how the couplers were built into the nose cone prevent operation at higher speeds than 25 MPH.
Green Maned Lion
Engineer
Probably a lot more. Amtrak's sets required full engineering and development to be paid for, even if they really are modernized electrically powered LRCs. Also, Amtrak ordered a tiny quantity. Our government, in its infinite wisdom, likes to cost Amtrak fortunes in unnecessary tooling costs. It would be cheaper to replace the entire NEC fleet in one shot then to build two sets of new cars, 20 trainsets each, 10 years apart. (Which, by the way, would not replace the entire fleet- it would perhaps replace half of it.)
George Harris
Engineer
Japanese N700 eight car trainset: seating capacity 662. Thati is 100 per full coach with 3+2 seating and 68 for the business class at 2+2 seating. The 3+2 is not really that tight. These cars are 11'-1" wide, which is about one foot wider than a standard American coach. This level would get you 1324 people in a 16 car train. Actually more, if it is a true 16 and not a double 8 car set.
Joel N. Weber II
Engineer
I'd thought that, given sufficiently good barriers, 110 MPH through a grade crossing is legal, and 111 MPH through a grade crossing isn't ever legal in the US.
I'm skeptical that large numbers of 110 MPH grade crossings will produce a safety record that will allow them to remain legal, though.
Joel N. Weber II
Engineer
However, with the semi permanently coupled nature of the Acela, the trailers end up in the shop for the inspections whenever the locomotives do. So while there might be some impact on the labor cost, I'm not sure if there'd really be a huge impact on the number of days the passenger cars spend in the shop each year.
And if you're talking about new HSR alignments, the cost of building the track probably makes even inefficient trainset maintenance look like a small cost.
But if 20 more Acela trainsets were built, they could probably be built with a modification to address this issue, and it might even be possible to retrofit that modification to the older Acela trainsets. Or, give each new Acela trainset one old Acela power car, and each old Acela trainset one new power car, and then every Acela trainset will have a new power car capable of coupling to another Acela trainset on one end. Yes, if you do that you'll have to feed trainsets through a wye or loop on occasion to get the coupleable end in the right place, but conveniently all of the major yards where you're most likely to want to do this do have a wye or loop.
On the NEC however for some reason, the maximum is 95 MPH. After that, the crossing must be closed if they want a higher speed.
Yes, but they still spend far less time in the shop than if they were EMU's. It's far easier for Amtrak to inspect 2 power cars over the course of the weekend, than it is to inspect 6 EMU's.
Joel N. Weber II
Engineer
If you have a set of 6 semi permanently coupled EMUs, what prevents building the shop so that you can have 6 crews, one per EMU, working in parallel?
Nothing.
But it does cost a whole lot more, since you've got a lot more parts that now need replacing and of course you now need 6 crews. And of course with 6 EMU's the odds of any one motor failing and taking the whole set out of service is far greater than the odds one of the two power cars failing and taking the set out of service.
And the upfront costs for six EMU's is far higher than two power cars and 6 trailers.
Green Maned Lion
Engineer
Ok Alan, but then explain to me why the Arrows are the oldest running cars on NJTransit's system. Why SEPTA uses EMUs almost exclusively, and LIRR and Metro-North use them substantially.
If MTA can make EMUs work, why can't Amtrak?
If MTA can make EMUs work, why can't Amtrak?
It's not a matter of getting them to work, it's a matter of the right tool for the right job. In the case of commuter ops, despite NJT's past contentions that now seem to be changing, EMU's are perfect for the quick accelerations/decelerations that are needed with stops on average 2 to 5 miles apart.
You don't need all that distributed power, extra weight, and extra cost in an Acela replacement.
At least in my opinion and I'm far from an expert on this.
Green Maned Lion
Engineer
I disagree. The accelerative advantage would be particularly useful around the curvier sections of the NEC.
Except for the fact that one wants to eliminate curves for high speed ops, which is what this topic is about.
Thats just one advantage. Having power cars in the style of Acela and TGV allows you to swop those power cars out if you have a problem, same as removing a defective locomotive.
If you have a fault on an EMU the whole train stays on shed if there is a problem.
The power cars and coaches have vastly different maintenance regimes, obviously, as the power cars have all the traction equipment.
I bet Amtrak doesn't have any spare Acela power cars though... Although if the trailer cars are being refurbished then there's 2 spare straight away.
VentureForth
Engineer
That's sorta true, but if one car on a 16-car trainset loses power, or faults, it can still run until it can be taken out of service. That's the beauty of having spares (whether spare power on a single train or spare trainsets). The added benefit of spare trainsets is that they're great for cycling equipment for maintenance AND they can be used for peak operating times.
As it is, the whole train has to go in for service at the same time anyway - whether it's an EMU or not. And an advantage of an EMU over a loco is that the parts are smaller and less expensive per each (maybe not per trainset, but the trades would have to be considered).
Obviously the Japanese think they're doing it right and don't plan to change things, and the French think they're doing it right and don't plan to change things.
SO, I think that the most important change that needs to take place in updating the Acelas is the ability to manipulate train length. Whether they are loco pulled or an EMU is really not as important as getting rid of the proprietary coupling and inability to add/remove cars as necessary. Also, perhaps a trailer mounted with a power pickup could serve for HEP instead of relying on the power unit itself.
As it is, the whole train has to go in for service at the same time anyway - whether it's an EMU or not. And an advantage of an EMU over a loco is that the parts are smaller and less expensive per each (maybe not per trainset, but the trades would have to be considered).
Obviously the Japanese think they're doing it right and don't plan to change things, and the French think they're doing it right and don't plan to change things.
SO, I think that the most important change that needs to take place in updating the Acelas is the ability to manipulate train length. Whether they are loco pulled or an EMU is really not as important as getting rid of the proprietary coupling and inability to add/remove cars as necessary. Also, perhaps a trailer mounted with a power pickup could serve for HEP instead of relying on the power unit itself.
Last edited by a moderator:
Just as an FYI Neil, the power cars are being given a bit of an overhall too. I'm not sure just how much work is being done, but for at least part of the time that the trainset is out of service, the power cars are in Wilmington for work.
One other thought against EMU's here is that I believe that the FRA Tier II crash regs forbid it. That's part of the reason that Acela has two power cars. The power car, and apparently the poor enginer along with it, is considered the crumple zone to protect the passenger cars. Not much point in running an empty EMU on the ends of each train.
- Status
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
VIA fare versus Amtrak fare between same city pairs.
- Latest: danasgoodstuff
