Amtrak new single level equipment

[Upstate]

Per FRA regulations there can be no boarding stairs on trains that travel over 125mph, this is the main reason the Acela is high-level platforms only.

Does anybody know the reasoning behind this rule? It makes sense that a premium train would not have you climbing stairs to board, but why the rule?

 

[Crescent ATN & TCL]

Per FRA regulations there can be no boarding stairs on trains that travel over 125mph, this is the main reason the Acela is high-level platforms only.

Does anybody know the reasoning behind this rule? It makes sense that a premium train would not have you climbing stairs to board, but why the rule?

I assume its another overkill crash-worthiness rule, that accomplishes nothing but making it more difficult to run a railroad and jack up the price of equipment.

 

[MrFSS]

Per FRA regulations there can be no boarding stairs on trains that travel over 125mph, this is the main reason the Acela is high-level platforms only.

Does anybody know the reasoning behind this rule? It makes sense that a premium train would not have you climbing stairs to board, but why the rule?

I assume its another overkill crash-worthiness rule, that accomplishes nothing but making it more difficult to run a railroad and jack up the price of equipment.

Could it have anything to do with aerodynamics?

 

[Crescent ATN & TCL]

Per FRA regulations there can be no boarding stairs on trains that travel over 125mph, this is the main reason the Acela is high-level platforms only.

Does anybody know the reasoning behind this rule? It makes sense that a premium train would not have you climbing stairs to board, but why the rule?

I assume its another overkill crash-worthiness rule, that accomplishes nothing but making it more difficult to run a railroad and jack up the price of equipment.

Could it have anything to do with aerodynamics?

Doubt it, TGV's an EuroStar's have computer controlled steps that automatically lower to match each individual platform at each station in every country and does all this while still allowing 186-220mph operations.

 

[George Harris]

Per FRA regulations there can be no boarding stairs on trains that travel over 125mph, this is the main reason the Acela is high-level platforms only.

I will admit to being lazy and not looking it up myself, but can you give us a "Chapter and Verse" for this statement?

 

[jis]

Per FRA regulations there can be no boarding stairs on trains that travel over 125mph, this is the main reason the Acela is high-level platforms only.

I will admit to being lazy and not looking it up myself, but can you give us a "Chapter and Verse" for this statement?

Can't give you chapter and verse. But the gist of it has nothing to do with being able to incorporate extensible stairs for boarding etc. AFAIR it talks about "no break in the sill" as one of the Tier II crashworthiness requirements. That would mean that you can't have stairwells that break the sill. Now if someone can come up with a way to build extensible/retractable stairs without breaking the sill, which is quite akin to what exists in TGVs, and I am sure quite doable, then it would seem that FRA would not have a problem with that.

 

[jis]

Just received pointers to the spec sheet of the ALP46A from Bombardier. You can see it at:

http://www.br146.de/revisionen_daten/ALP-4...C_Sept08_en.pdf

Here is something that Amtrak could order off the shelf to meet some of its electric locomotive needs on the NEC.

While at it they could even consider taking a look at the dual-mode from Bombardier too. The spec sheet can be found at:

http://www.br146.de/revisionen_daten/DualP...C_Sept08_en.pdf

NJT has 27 on order and options on 33 more. AMT in Montreal is ordering some number of them too. These could be used for through running Springfield and Richmond trains onto the electrified NEC, incurring minimal delay at New Haven and Washington DC respectively.

It will all cost an arm and a leg though.

 

[VT Hokie]

Per FRA regulations there can be no boarding stairs on trains that travel over 125mph, this is the main reason the Acela is high-level platforms only.

I will admit to being lazy and not looking it up myself, but can you give us a "Chapter and Verse" for this statement?

Can't give you chapter and verse. But the gist of it has nothing to do with being able to incorporate extensible stairs for boarding etc. AFAIR it talks about "no break in the sill" as one of the Tier II crashworthiness requirements. That would mean that you can't have stairwells that break the sill. Now if someone can come up with a way to build extensible/retractable stairs without breaking the sill, which is quite akin to what exists in TGVs, and I am sure quite doable, then it would seem that FRA would not have a problem with that.

The Acela cars have four beams running the length of the carbody to help meet Tier II buff strength requirements. You can see the ends of the crash posts in this photo. Adding stairs wouldn't be possible with the lower posts.

http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/amtk10003.jpg

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

While at it they could even consider taking a look at the dual-mode from Bombardier too. The spec sheet can be found at:
http://www.br146.de/revisionen_daten/DualP...C_Sept08_en.pdf

NJT has 27 on order and options on 33 more. AMT in Montreal is ordering some number of them too. These could be used for through running Springfield and Richmond trains onto the electrified NEC, incurring minimal delay at New Haven and Washington DC respectively.

It will all cost an arm and a leg though.

Don't you mean that it will create a large number of jobs and stimulate the economy?

The spec sheet says the dual mode locomotives are 5360 HP in catenary mode and 2 x 2100 HP in diesel mode. Why is the spec written as 2 x ? Are there two prime movers?

IIRC, the HHP-8s are around 8000 HP; will the dual mode locomotive be able to pull as long a train as a single HHP-8?

How does the dual mode locomotive's diesel horsepower compare to a P42?

Does the prime mover have to run at a fixed speed to generate HEP when in diesel mode?

The other issue with through running to Springfield seems to be Metro-North track capacity and perhaps also Springfield-Boston track capacity. If NYP-New Haven-Springfield-Boston were a viable route, Amtrak could justify running more full length Northeast Regional trainsets via Springfield.

But I also tend to think all of this track should get electrified. More job creation, more potential for using clean energy for transportation, less need to import energy from other countries.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

specially when none of our LD or Corridor trains run anywhere near the full possible length anyway.

Don't the Acela trainsets run at the full length the maintenance facilities can support?

Yes. The trainsets could be longer from a power and performance standpoint, but Amtrak only designed the maintenance buildings and associated trackwork to accommodate the six-car sets.

OTOH, not being able to lengthen maintenance building by two car lengths has got to be one of the lamest excuses for not doing something that makes sense - if that is the excuse being provided that is. I have no idea if that is the case.

I'm quite sure that there has been some thread in the past somewhere on these forums claiming that finding the extra space (a bit less than two hundred feet) would be a significant problem at the maintenance faclities near each of BOS, NYP, and WAS. It seems like that and deciding that this is how we want to spend money / create jobs are the key challenges to lengthening the Acela trainsets.

I'm wondering what it would take to double Amtrak's available seats between NYP and WAS. It seems to me that that's what would be needed for Amtrak to get 100% of that market. Adding two BC cars to each Acela trainset would increase the available Acela BC seats by 50%, which is far short of doubling. I don't think adding 81 cars to the 25-30 or so Northeast Regional trainsets would double the seats available there, either.

Would there be track capacity to run Acela trainsets on half hourly headways instead of on hourly headways between NYP and WAS? Or if the couplers on the locomotives were redesigned, could they run as mated pairs (would the platforms be long enough)?

 

[sechs]

Don't Acela motors have standard couplers under their noses? No redesign needed there....

 

[daveyb99]

Single Level would be boring out here west of the Mississippi. Who wants that toilet thing in their room anyway.

More Superliners with some crafty roomier designs and big windows.

 

[AlanB]

Don't Acela motors have standard couplers under their noses? No redesign needed there....

They do have standard couplers under the nose cone, however they are useless except in an emergency situation. Due to mobility restrictions caused by the cone and frame, I believe that maximum authorized speed is like 25 MPH or so. And you definately can't tie two Acela's together and operate them normally.

 

[George Harris]

Don't Acela motors have standard couplers under their noses? No redesign needed there....

They do have standard couplers under the nose cone, however they are useless except in an emergency situation. Due to mobility restrictions caused by the cone and frame, I believe that maximum authorized speed is like 25 MPH or so. And you definately can't tie two Acela's together and operate them normally.

Funny, The Shinkansen manages to do just that, and make the connection/disconnection in less than 10 minutes. No fuss, no muss. Just do it and get up and go full speed. The only problem being that you can't walk to a car that is in the other half. There are times we need to quit looking across the Atlantic for ideas and start looking across the Pacific.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

I thought part of the excuse with the limitations of the Acela couplers might have had something to do with curves, and if I recall correctly the Shinkansen operates on an alignment that was originally constructed for the Shinkansen, which might mean the curves are less tight over there.

 

[AlanB]

I thought part of the excuse with the limitations of the Acela couplers might have had something to do with curves, and if I recall correctly the Shinkansen operates on an alignment that was originally constructed for the Shinkansen, which might mean the curves are less tight over there.

That's exactly the problem, my understanding is that the range of left to right motion is limited by the design and therefore a higher speeds and with tilting turned on, the couplers would bang into the frame.

 

[AlanB]

The spec sheet says the dual mode locomotives are 5360 HP in catenary mode and 2 x 2100 HP in diesel mode. Why is the spec written as 2 x ? Are there two prime movers?

Yes, there are two smaller engines instead of one large prime mover.

How does the dual mode locomotive's diesel horsepower compare to a P42?

Assuming that there isn't some factor that limits things, 2 X 2100 would be 4,200 HP in total, the same as a P42 delivers.

Does the prime mover have to run at a fixed speed to generate HEP when in diesel mode?

I'm sure that it must run at some fixed speed, otherwise it wouldn't be generating power at all. Just how high that speed might be I don't know and the spec sheet doesn't specify. However, since there are two seperate motors, only one would actually need to operate to provide HEP. Therefore instead of burning the fuel that one 4,200 prime mover in a P42 would burn, I'm sure that you'd be burning a lot less.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Does the prime mover have to run at a fixed speed to generate HEP when in diesel mode?

I'm sure that it must run at some fixed speed, otherwise it wouldn't be generating power at all. Just how high that speed might be I don't know and the spec sheet doesn't specify. However, since there are two seperate motors, only one would actually need to operate to provide HEP. Therefore instead of burning the fuel that one 4,200 prime mover in a P42 would burn, I'm sure that you'd be burning a lot less.

If you generate DC and use a solid state inverter, it should be possible to get 60 hz power as long as the prime mover is running above a certain speed, instead of requiring that it run at a very specific speed as is required when the frequency of the alternating current is directly related to the speed at which the prime mover is rotating.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Just received pointers to the spec sheet of the ALP46A from Bombardier. You can see it at:
http://www.br146.de/revisionen_daten/ALP-4...C_Sept08_en.pdf

Here is something that Amtrak could order off the shelf to meet some of its electric locomotive needs on the NEC.

While at it they could even consider taking a look at the dual-mode from Bombardier too. The spec sheet can be found at:

http://www.br146.de/revisionen_daten/DualP...C_Sept08_en.pdf

NJT has 27 on order and options on 33 more. AMT in Montreal is ordering some number of them too. These could be used for through running Springfield and Richmond trains onto the electrified NEC, incurring minimal delay at New Haven and Washington DC respectively.

It will all cost an arm and a leg though.

JIS, the ALP-46As are German. I don't think Amtrak could buy them.

 

[amtrakwolverine]

Just received pointers to the spec sheet of the ALP46A from Bombardier. You can see it at:
http://www.br146.de/revisionen_daten/ALP-4...C_Sept08_en.pdf

Here is something that Amtrak could order off the shelf to meet some of its electric locomotive needs on the NEC.

While at it they could even consider taking a look at the dual-mode from Bombardier too. The spec sheet can be found at:

http://www.br146.de/revisionen_daten/DualP...C_Sept08_en.pdf

NJT has 27 on order and options on 33 more. AMT in Montreal is ordering some number of them too. These could be used for through running Springfield and Richmond trains onto the electrified NEC, incurring minimal delay at New Haven and Washington DC respectively.

It will all cost an arm and a leg though.

JIS, the ALP-46As are German. I don't think Amtrak could buy them.

well what american locomotive company's are there. does GE still make locos. ALCO just makes the prime movers. they don't make the whole locomotive. there hasn't been any new passenger locos built in america besides commuter engines.

 

[MattW]

Well what's wrong with the MP units coming out of Boise? They seem like great units to me, especially the higher horsepower MP40 GO is getting.

 

[amtrakwolverine]

Well what's wrong with the MP units coming out of Boise? They seem like great units to me, especially the higher horsepower MP40 GO is getting.

i don't think there made for long distance hauls.

 

[Crescent ATN & TCL]

I thought part of the excuse with the limitations of the Acela couplers might have had something to do with curves, and if I recall correctly the Shinkansen operates on an alignment that was originally constructed for the Shinkansen, which might mean the curves are less tight over there.

and the Shinkansen, TGVs and other similar HSTs that operate in twos have special nose ring couplers that lock much more securely than knuckle couplers and the play is in the drawbar not the coupler like knuckle couplers.

 

[AlanB]

Well what's wrong with the MP units coming out of Boise? They seem like great units to me, especially the higher horsepower MP40 GO is getting.

They don't run on Catenary, they aren't dual-mode, and they probably don't fit through the tunnels at NYP or Baltimore.

 

[jackal]

Don't Acela motors have standard couplers under their noses? No redesign needed there....

They do have standard couplers under the nose cone, however they are useless except in an emergency situation. Due to mobility restrictions caused by the cone and frame, I believe that maximum authorized speed is like 25 MPH or so. And you definately can't tie two Acela's together and operate them normally.

Funny, The Shinkansen manages to do just that, and make the connection/disconnection in less than 10 minutes. No fuss, no muss. Just do it and get up and go full speed. The only problem being that you can't walk to a car that is in the other half. There are times we need to quit looking across the Atlantic for ideas and start looking across the Pacific.

Except that they also run some TGVs in two-train pairs connected up exactly as you describe.

Don't know if the connection can be made in less than 10 minutes, though.