Why won't HSR be run by Amtrak?

Valid point, but then the next logical argument comes back to whether the FRA Tier II crash regs are entirely necessary. Again, Shinkansen 16-coach trainset probably weighs about the same as an Acela set (maybe not that light, but it gets the point across), and has had 1 fatality (if that?) that was caused by operations in 40 years...

As for running an empty EMU, Pacific Surfliner runs empty cab cars all the time - to "protect the driver from passengers".

VentureForth said:

Valid point, but then the next logical argument comes back to whether the FRA Tier II crash regs are entirely necessary. Again, Shinkansen 16-coach trainset probably weighs about the same as an Acela set (maybe not that light, but it gets the point across), and has had 1 fatality (if that?) that was caused by operations in 40 years...
As for running an empty EMU, Pacific Surfliner runs empty cab cars all the time - to "protect the driver from passengers".

Click to expand...

Well I won't debate if the FRA has gone too far. I know that many do believe that, but at least for the moment I don't see any hope of changing those regs.

As for the Pacific Surfliner, a cab car is not an EMU. Yes, it has engine controls, but without an engine it's not going anywhere. There are no "motors" to speak of. I'm not sure how FRA regs treat cabs cars with respect to inspections, perhaps Dutch or someone else knows if they fall under car inspection prototcols, engine inspection protocols, or perhaps even some special category.

I know that. My correlation was the wasted space for passengers... Your point was that it would be wasteful to run a light trainset with an empty end unit. I was agreeing, noting that the PSL often runs with an empty cab car for reasons seemingly not as logical.

VentureForth said:

I know that. My correlation was the wasted space for passengers... Your point was that it would be wasteful to run a light trainset with an empty end unit. I was agreeing, noting that the PSL often runs with an empty cab car for reasons seemingly not as logical.

Click to expand...

The PSL running an empty cab car is part logical, part not. It was an outgrowth out of the older Metrolink accident where the train running cab forward hit the car parked on the tracks. Neither Metrolink cars nor Amtrak's Surfliner cars meet Tier II safety standards, one reason that in the recent Metrolink crash with the freight train, that the engine was shoved so far back into the first passenger car.

The less logical reason is that despite all of the above, for the speeds involved on the Surfliner, the FRA still consider the car safe. But they seem to be trying to not use the car unless needed in part I suspect to try to be safer, in part because the crew likes to have some place to hang out with no passengers around.

Empty cab cars? Maybe on the PSL, but certainly not on the California trains in general. Caltrain down the peninsula certainly runs with people in the cab car, at least up until this past week, which was the last time I was in one. The "Amtrak California" trains down the valley still were running with passengers in the cab car, at least in early April, which was the last time I rode one down the Valley.

To run with the cab cars empty goes beyond paranoia to rediculously silly paranoia.

EMU's make as much or more sense at high speed than in commuter service. Since adhesion drops with speed, as speeds get high, particularly in the 150 mph plus range, the axle loads on power units has to be fairly high, at least high in terms of this sort of equipment, not coal train high, in order to accelerated reasonably, or even simply maintain speed on wet rails.

AlanB said:

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.

Click to expand...

First of all I am wondering whether we are again confusing EMU and distributed power, something that happens often in the US because EMUs as found on the NEC also use extremely distributed power, unlike in many parts of the world. For example standard EMU units in what used to be Network Southeast in the UK used to be one power car and three trailers. Strictly speaking if two Acelas could operate in tandem like 2 TGV units do all the time in France, they would be operating as EMU.

Setting that aside for the moment, there is another minor point involving the FRA and a bit of Physics/Engineering.

For high speed operations it is a very bad idea to have a large number of pantographs touching the catenary within a short interval, such as the length of a train. In order to avoid such most HSRs use a few pantos (even as few as one sometimes) and a high tension cable running the length of the train to supply power to wherever the power units are. The TGVs have this. The Shinkansen models have this. The Eurostars have this. This sort of high tension bus is in violation of FRA regs, and require a waiver. This is what the EMUs like Arrow IIIs operate under.

Now one can fix FRA, but one cannot change the issues governed by physics/engineering regarding mechanical behavior of pantographs that touch the wire too close together. So even under the best of circumstances do not expect to see a panto on every other car reaching up 8 feet to touch the cat, like you see on the Arrows, and do expect to not have extremely distributed power. BTW the 2 power units for 6 cars as in Acela is not that far removed from the norm of power distribution on high speed train sets.

I think the crash standards in this country are a clear barrier to high-speed rail development. They are, frankly, arbitrary.

The thing that I'm curious about is why in particular they seem to have gotten in the way of monoque car designs. British Rail's Mk III cars from the 1970s and 1980s used in the InterCity 125 diesel sets and on locomotive-hauled electric trains have an impressive crash-worthiness record, in contrast to earlier British designs; the Mk IV from the early 1990s used in the InterCity 225 electric sets better yet, and apparently further crash-worthiness improvements were incorporated in the Pendolino EMUs used on the West Coast Main Line. The one serious accident to date involving a Pendolino, a 95mph derailment due to poor trackwork at Grayrigg in Cumbria, saw cars thrown all over the place, slammed into bridge abutments and many other things, but only one fatality and very few serious injuries, because the cars were not ripped apart like the LA Metrolink crash.

What all these designs have in common from the Mk III on is a monoque design. It's the same principle as a P42, except applied to the vehicles the passengers are actually riding in. Yet none of these cars, as far as I know, would be Tier II legal in the United States, not even the Pendolino. That is quite simply ludicrous. Tier II was directly responsible for losing all other bidders besides Bombardier, and for the absurd weight of the Acela. I have no doubt that the Pendolino at least ought to be a safe design for the US.

The FRA's regulations seem to be almost entirely about input, and not about outcomes. That's a recipe for a very heavy car that isn't necessarily as good as it could be.

There are also some very strange features of the Acela that aggravate the problem. The cars are very long, as long as a Superliner and conventional locomotive-hauled stock in Europe, but significantly longer than typical for high-speed stock like Pendolino and TGV cars, imposing an extra structural burden. Despite the fact that the train cars are permanently coupled there was no move to have shared trucks between cars which would have reduced weight and improved ride (perhaps the car bodies were too heavy for this?). And the windows on the Acela are huge, reducing the integrity of the body.

jis said:

In order to avoid such most HSRs use a few pantos (even as few as one sometimes) and a high tension cable running the length of the train to supply power to wherever the power units are. The TGVs have this. The Shinkansen models have this. The Eurostars have this. This sort of high tension bus is in violation of FRA regs, and require a waiver.

Click to expand...

Eurostars do not have the HT cable linking the power cars. They run with 2 pans up, one each end. The power cars are far enough apart to avoid issues with catenary oscillation and the tunnel fire regs don't permit it. The 2 half units should be able to split and leave the damaged part behind. An over head bus line would make that difficult

Neil_M said:

jis said:

In order to avoid such most HSRs use a few pantos (even as few as one sometimes) and a high tension cable running the length of the train to supply power to wherever the power units are. The TGVs have this. The Shinkansen models have this. The Eurostars have this. This sort of high tension bus is in violation of FRA regs, and require a waiver.

Click to expand...

Eurostars do not have the HT cable linking the power cars. They run with 2 pans up, one each end. The power cars are far enough apart to avoid issues with catenary oscillation and the tunnel fire regs don't permit it. The 2 half units should be able to split and leave the damaged part behind. An over head bus line would make that difficult

Click to expand...

You are correct. My bad. It is the TGVs that operate only with one pan using the HT bus to provide power to the other power-head. The Shinkansens sets have ht bus spanning portion of the train that is supplied from each pan. the N700s I believe have 2 pans if I remember right.

jis said:

Neil_M said:

jis said:

In order to avoid such most HSRs use a few pantos (even as few as one sometimes) and a high tension cable running the length of the train to supply power to wherever the power units are. The TGVs have this. The Shinkansen models have this. The Eurostars have this. This sort of high tension bus is in violation of FRA regs, and require a waiver.

Click to expand...

Eurostars do not have the HT cable linking the power cars. They run with 2 pans up, one each end. The power cars are far enough apart to avoid issues with catenary oscillation and the tunnel fire regs don't permit it. The 2 half units should be able to split and leave the damaged part behind. An over head bus line would make that difficult

Click to expand...

You are correct. My bad. It is the TGVs that operate only with one pan using the HT bus to provide power to the other power-head.

Click to expand...

They do, but on the LGV and 25Kv routes only. On the older 1500V DC electrified routes then it's both pans up.

Neil_M said:

They do, but on the LGV and 25Kv routes only. On the older 1500V DC electrified routes then it's both pans up.

Click to expand...

Yep, I believe they actually need both up to collect enough current at the lower voltage to provide the power needed. I think I recall having read somewhere that their performance would be noticeably compromised if they operated with a single pan in DC territory.

photoeditor said:

I think the crash standards in this country are a clear barrier to high-speed rail development.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I agree. Buying 150 MPH trainsets, even with the current crash standards, seems to be a lot easier than coming up with a decent amount of track that supports 150 MPH running for any reasonable length of time.

jis said:

For high speed operations it is a very bad idea to have a large number of pantographs touching the catenary within a short interval, such as the length of a train. In order to avoid such most HSRs use a few pantos (even as few as one sometimes) and a high tension cable running the length of the train to supply power to wherever the power units are. The TGVs have this. The Shinkansen models have this. The Eurostars have this. This sort of high tension bus is in violation of FRA regs, and require a waiver. This is what the EMUs like Arrow IIIs operate under.

Click to expand...

One could imagine a trainset in which the car at one end had a cab, pantograph, main transformer, and baggage space, followed by some mix of powered and unpowered passenger cars, with another cab at the far end.

It's possible to distribute power at 700V or 1000V or so between the cars; I'm under the impression that that's roughly the voltage the freight railroads use for slugs.

The cables probably aren't small at that voltage; and I doubt a slug is going to be rated at more than 1000 or 2000 horsepower when a typical diesel prime mover is around 4000 horsepower, and I suspect this means that in passenger service, the amperage will need to be several times what is found in the cable to a slug for this to be useful.

My other question is whether the wattage of the main transformer is limited by the weight that can be accomodated in a single car (and, would eliminating 25 hz territory help with the weight any?).

jis said:

Neil_M said:

jis said:

In order to avoid such most HSRs use a few pantos (even as few as one sometimes) and a high tension cable running the length of the train to supply power to wherever the power units are. The TGVs have this. The Shinkansen models have this. The Eurostars have this. This sort of high tension bus is in violation of FRA regs, and require a waiver.

Click to expand...

Eurostars do not have the HT cable linking the power cars. They run with 2 pans up, one each end. The power cars are far enough apart to avoid issues with catenary oscillation and the tunnel fire regs don't permit it. The 2 half units should be able to split and leave the damaged part behind. An over head bus line would make that difficult

Click to expand...

You are correct. My bad. It is the TGVs that operate only with one pan using the HT bus to provide power to the other power-head. The Shinkansens sets have ht bus spanning portion of the train that is supplied from each pan. the N700s I believe have 2 pans if I remember right.

Click to expand...

I think that the original 0 Series Shinkansen had a pantograph every other car on their 16-car trainset. I don't know how many the 100-series had (but it was fewer), but yes, since about the 300-series (c.1998+) they have run 16-carriage trainsets with two pantos. It's another advantage of having a dedicated ROW with consistent power throughout the service route.

HERE is a very interesting blast from a not-so-long ago proposal by Bombardiar (aka Canadair) to provide Amtrak with a JetTrain that could run on existing tracks with an AEM-7-ish jet-engine powered locomotive. The accompanying trainset would be a full tilting set.

The idea behind this venture was to be able to use high speed equipment on trackage that was limited to 79 MPH, yet not have to replace it as track speeds could be improved up to 153 MPH (or replaced with new trunk lines).

It was proposed simultaneously with the Acela trainset. Evidently, Amtrak's harsh relationship with Bombardier, coupled with Florida infighting (first application was to be between Tampa and Orlando), and of course FRA budget cuts on rail travel over the last decade, completely killed this program. The link above is a shadow of Canadair's literature, as Bombardier has no reference to any of this information.

By the way, the prototype loco only cost the US Gov $13 Mil. Bombardier covered the other $13 Mil.

Whatta shameful waste.

VentureForth said:

By the way, the prototype loco only cost the US Gov $13 Mil. Bombardier covered the other $13 Mil.
Whatta shameful waste.

Click to expand...

Yep, and being a gas-turbine thing it would also cost an arm and a leg to operate. Good thing we stopped at wasting just $13 million.

Yes, the jets only are efficient above 65% of its power rating. However, a low speed diesel generator can supplement/replace the turbine power when necessary. Really, the latest PWC turbojet engines sip fuel for their power output.

At any rate, I think they beat the Colorado Railcar idea...

Gas turbines have had more than one trip to the table, and always with the same result: Too complex, too finicky, too expensive to maintain, fuel hogs. Insanity has been defined as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. To try turbine power again would fit this definition.

George Harris said:

Gas turbines have had more than one trip to the table, and always with the same result: Too complex, too finicky, too expensive to maintain, fuel hogs. Insanity has been defined as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. To try turbine power again would fit this definition.

Click to expand...

And Boardman still wants the RTL-IIIs running on the Empire Corridor.

I've had some pretty vicious arguments with people about why they should stay shelved- and I'm including a variety of people that really should know better.

George Harris said:

Gas turbines have had more than one trip to the table, and always with the same result: Too complex, too finicky, too expensive to maintain, fuel hogs. Insanity has been defined as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. To try turbine power again would fit this definition.

Click to expand...

Gas turbine design continues to evolve and improve. I personally work with smaller turbine applications, but I've seen first hand enormous progress made in the past decade as the things have become more efficient, more powerful, and much more reliable. I don't think it's at all unbelievable for a company to claim a new generation of gas turbine engine.

That doesn't mean gas turbines are appropriate to this application, just that it's not really trying the same thing over and over again.

And to nit pick, insanity has never been defined that way by anyone who knew what he was talking about It's funny how some lines wedge themselves in the cultural psyche.

I just saw the first part of the "Supertrain" TV pilot. With that knowledge, I declare that America's new high-speed train should be "atom powered." That's the only way we can get across the country in 36 hours.

http://www.infrastructurist.com/2009/05/08...ress-to-terror/

BTW, I don't know what it is, but I've seen more "Supertrain" references in the past week than I have ... well, ever.

RTOlson said:

I just saw the first part of the "Supertrain" TV pilot. With that knowledge, I declare that America's new high-speed train should be "atom powered." That's the only way we can get across the country in 36 hours.
BTW, I don't know what it is, but I've seen more "Supertrain" references in the past week than I have ... well, ever.

Click to expand...

Aloha

And probably saw more that it was viewed when it was a current series. I can't remember what were the circumstances but I received an invitation to bid on buying the model used in filming.

volkris said:

George Harris said:

Gas turbines have had more than one trip to the table, and always with the same result: Too complex, too finicky, too expensive to maintain, fuel hogs. Insanity has been defined as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. To try turbine power again would fit this definition.

Click to expand...

Gas turbine design continues to evolve and improve. I personally work with smaller turbine applications, but I've seen first hand enormous progress made in the past decade as the things have become more efficient, more powerful, and much more reliable. I don't think it's at all unbelievable for a company to claim a new generation of gas turbine engine.

That doesn't mean gas turbines are appropriate to this application, just that it's not really trying the same thing over and over again.

And to nit pick, insanity has never been defined that way by anyone who knew what he was talking about It's funny how some lines wedge themselves in the cultural psyche.

Click to expand...

I'll have to agree with Volkris here... Pratt & Whitney Canada over the last 10 years has developed some extremely high output, low fuel consumption turbines. In addition, a smaller diesel generator for yard speeds could be incorporated to reduce fuel consumption.

Keep in mind that the Bombardier JetTrain is 1990's/2000's technology as opposed to the 1960's/70's technologies of the TurboTrain.

Quite frankly, I think we're MUCH closer to a non-electrified high speed steel wheel (150 MPH) solution than we are to a maglev solution. And I think it can be done for a fraction of the cost.

VentureForth said:

Quite frankly, I think we're MUCH closer to a non-electrified high speed steel wheel (150 MPH) solution than we are to a maglev solution. And I think it can be done for a fraction of the cost.

Click to expand...

I will agree with this on the basis that while non-electrified high speed may be like a trip to Saturn or Neptune, successful Maglev would be like a trip to the next Galaxy.

I'd say that Mr. Harris is right.

Also, if you are going to build a high-speed rail network, with the frequency the track grading implies, the cost of electrification is more than justified.