Why won't HSR be run by Amtrak?

[RTOlson]

Are you sure about that 60 percent market share for just Acela? I would think, and have found preliminary sources, that that percentage is for all of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor services including Regionals.

Also, 60 percent of what? I don't know what's being measured.

Yes, Acela isn't what a lot of people thought it would be, but it definitely could provide a lot of lessons for people willing to learn. If it was based on TGV technology, what's so wrong with rolling that out to other parts of the country?

We, and I include Boardman, may be talking about different levels and speeds of service.

I'm making this list to think through points that have been raised.

5 mph - Examples of speeds through some populated areas due to congestion and poor maintenance.

79 mph -- Current speed limit (in most parts) -- if we're lucky. It's very often much, much slower.

110-125 mph -- Approx. current top speeds of NEC. The speed of 110 mpg mentioned by Boardman as being possible if we modernized the existing rail network.

If we build a new network for high-speed rail (or upgrading parts of the current network), we could go much faster.

150 mph - Top speed of current Acela trains.

150-200 mph - Approx. speed range mentioned in current HSR proposals.

217 mph - Current top speed of deployed global HSR technology.

220 mph - Advertised top speed of the project by the California High-Speed Rail Authority.

I don't exactly know what to think about the numbers I just put out. Both goals seem daunting -- upgrading the national network to 110 mph or building a few HSR corridors at 150-200 mph. I also don't know which one would have the best measure of success versus investment.

 

[Neil_M]

Given the long lead time to build, commission and open a new high speed line, probably up to 10 years or so, Amtrak should concentrate on improving what is there now, extra cars, more locos, modest speed improvements, increasing service frequency and improving the quality of its existing product, rather than worrying about something still a long way down the line

 

[gswager]

Given the long lead time to build, commission and open a new high speed line, probably up to 10 years or so, Amtrak should concentrate on improving what is there now, extra cars, more locos, modest speed improvements, increasing service frequency and improving the quality of its existing product, rather than worrying about something still a long way down the line

I agree that Amtrak should focus on existing system. Let others, such as state/fed, to work on new or expanding technology or major improvements because it's very time consuming. I applaud for NE corridor which is still on-going process by Amtrak. In my opinion, I think CA may come up next. I've heard about Michigan, but haven't heard anything about it (probably the range is short).

Weird part that CA has two planning projects- HSR and Caltrains' electricification. Hopefully the improving economy will increase the tax revenue to make these happens.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

If it was based on TGV technology, what's so wrong with rolling that out to other parts of the country?

Because the Acelas are junk and Bombardier should be roast at the stake for building them that way. God forbid more Acelas are built.

 

[RTOlson]

I know Acelas have their faults. I was referring to the possibility of learning from Acela's mistakes and successes and redeploying the underlying technology after making appropriate changes.

 

[Neil_M]

If it was based on TGV technology, what's so wrong with rolling that out to other parts of the country?

Because the Acelas are junk and Bombardier should be roast at the stake for building them that way. God forbid more Acelas are built.

So go on then, use your vast experience of operating rolling stock to explain why they are junk and what you would do differently, god forbid.

Or is it that they aren't Budd cars? (yawn)

 

[RTOlson]

Although I'm sure GML can provide many reasons why Acelas were "junk," I can personally think of a couple stated reasons off the top of my head:

- The train can't operate as efficiently as initially planned because of the more limited tilt of its articulation frame. (IIRC)

- That brake cracks debacle where they had to pull all the Acelas from service until they could fix the problem.

- Cracks also appeared in another part of the system shortly after it was introduced. Wikipedia (grain of salt) says the cracks were on the brackets connecting "dampers (shocks) to the powerunit carbodies."

And, as this Boston Globe article points out, Amtrak briefly reintroduced Metroliners when Acela was sidetracked. It performed nearly as well and cost less to operate although downsides included that it was older cars and lacked as many amenities.

For what it's worth, if Amtrak were to somehow deploy trains that can operate 100+ mph across the country, I'd rather see TGV-Acela style designs than Metroliners.

 

[Neil_M]

- The train can't operate as efficiently as initially planned because of the more limited tilt of its articulation frame. (IIRC)- That brake cracks debacle where they had to pull all the Acelas from service until they could fix the problem.

- Cracks also appeared in another part of the system shortly after it was introduced. Wikipedia (grain of salt) says the cracks were on the brackets connecting "dampers (shocks) to the powerunit carbodies."

Cracks in brake discs and damper brackets are hardly the end of the world or 'junk' as some less enlightened persons might claim. Even the German ICE is not without its problems, just recently problems with wheelsets grounded a fair proportion of the fleet.

It seems almost normal for newer stuff to have issues like that at some point in its lifespan.

 

[AlanB]

- The train can't operate as efficiently as initially planned because of the more limited tilt of its articulation frame. (IIRC)

That's not the fault of the train nor is it a mechanical issue. The train is fully capable of tilting to the originally designed maximum tilt with a bit of reprogramming on the computers. The train cannot however tilt to the maximum design, because some genius forgot how close the track centers are on the NEC and they made the train a bit wider than originally planned. Therefore, were Amtrak to set things up to allow Acela to tilt to the maximum, it could and probably would tilt right into another train causing some major problems.

And, as this Boston Globe article points out, Amtrak briefly reintroduced Metroliners when Acela was sidetracked. It performed nearly as well and cost less to operate although downsides included that it was older cars and lacked as many amenities.

I see nothing in that article that says it costs Amtrak less to operate the Acela. All references were that it costs passenger less to ride the Metroliner, since Amtrak dropped prices to keep ridership.

 

[RTOlson]

^^

I misread the context in the article. Probably just one pratfall of trying to hastily do Internet research.

Thanks.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

- The train can't operate as efficiently as initially planned because of the more limited tilt of its articulation frame. (IIRC)- That brake cracks debacle where they had to pull all the Acelas from service until they could fix the problem.

- Cracks also appeared in another part of the system shortly after it was introduced. Wikipedia (grain of salt) says the cracks were on the brackets connecting "dampers (shocks) to the powerunit carbodies."

Cracks in brake discs and damper brackets are hardly the end of the world or 'junk' as some less enlightened persons might claim. Even the German ICE is not without its problems, just recently problems with wheelsets grounded a fair proportion of the fleet.

It seems almost normal for newer stuff to have issues like that at some point in its lifespan.

The main problem with them is the low quality of weldwork and the fact that the construction is essentially under specified for the trains colossal weight. As a result, joints and panels flex more than then they should and the metal on several sets are already showing noticeable fatigue.

The problem lays in a pretty basic flaw. I'm sure Mr. Harris could explain this better, but the way Bombardier attempted to meet American crash standards was a weight-inefficient method, and the cars weigh a hell of a lot more than they need to. Ipso facto, its a flawed design.

Its what happens when you take the then 20 year old Light-Rapid-Comfortable technology and car body, combine it with some TGV technology, and then multiply metallic thickness to increase collision strength, then call it a modern solution to High-Speed Rail and get your government to offer Amtrak financing it couldn't refuse. Amtrak and many people within have long said they should have gone with the X2000 rather then Bombardier.

 

[AlanB]

The main problem with them is the low quality of weldwork and the fact that the construction is essentially under specified for the trains colossal weight. As a result, joints and panels flex more than then they should and the metal on several sets are already showing noticeable fatigue.
The problem lays in a pretty basic flaw. I'm sure Mr. Harris could explain this better, but the way Bombardier attempted to meet American crash standards was a weight-inefficient method, and the cars weigh a hell of a lot more than they need to. Ipso facto, its a flawed design.

Its what happens when you take the then 20 year old Light-Rapid-Comfortable technology and car body, combine it with some TGV technology, and then multiply metallic thickness to increase collision strength, then call it a modern solution to High-Speed Rail and get your government to offer Amtrak financing it couldn't refuse. Amtrak and many people within have long said they should have gone with the X2000 rather then Bombardier.

I can't speak to welding work and other things like that, since I don't have the specs and haven't seen the work.

But let's be careful not to lay all the blame at Bombardier's feet either, and please I'm not suggesting that you were. Amtrak had considerable input into the design of Acela and they and they alone are responsible for some of the design problems with Acela. This is why Amtrak settled with Bombardier out of court after both made some posturing noises, because Amtrak knew that some of the problems would indeed be proved to be Amtrak's fault.

 

[Neil_M]

- The train can't operate as efficiently as initially planned because of the more limited tilt of its articulation frame. (IIRC)- That brake cracks debacle where they had to pull all the Acelas from service until they could fix the problem.

- Cracks also appeared in another part of the system shortly after it was introduced. Wikipedia (grain of salt) says the cracks were on the brackets connecting "dampers (shocks) to the powerunit carbodies."

Cracks in brake discs and damper brackets are hardly the end of the world or 'junk' as some less enlightened persons might claim. Even the German ICE is not without its problems, just recently problems with wheelsets grounded a fair proportion of the fleet.

It seems almost normal for newer stuff to have issues like that at some point in its lifespan.

The main problem with them is the low quality of weldwork and the fact that the construction is essentially under specified for the trains colossal weight. As a result, joints and panels flex more than then they should and the metal on several sets are already showing noticeable fatigue.

The problem lays in a pretty basic flaw. I'm sure Mr. Harris could explain this better, but the way Bombardier attempted to meet American crash standards was a weight-inefficient method, and the cars weigh a hell of a lot more than they need to. Ipso facto, its a flawed design.

Its what happens when you take the then 20 year old Light-Rapid-Comfortable technology and car body, combine it with some TGV technology, and then multiply metallic thickness to increase collision strength, then call it a modern solution to High-Speed Rail and get your government to offer Amtrak financing it couldn't refuse. Amtrak and many people within have long said they should have gone with the X2000 rather then Bombardier.

Maybe then you need to have crash standards that are realistic,trying to build trains in the future that will travel at up to 200 mph is going to be very hard if everything is built like a tank.

Best way to survive a collision is not have one in the first place.....

Poor weldwork? Where were the Acelas built then?

 

[jis]

The main problem with them is the low quality of weldwork and the fact that the construction is essentially under specified for the trains colossal weight. As a result, joints and panels flex more than then they should and the metal on several sets are already showing noticeable fatigue.

Could you perhaps provide some cites to documentation about this? I would really like to learn more about this. I have heard this claim thrown around blithely by everyone ranging all the way upto Gunn, but mostly by implications and innuendos. I would really like to get a handle on this from a technical perspective if I could.

Please note that I am not challenging your claim or anything like that. I would genuinely like to learn more about it so that I can talk about this from a more informed position. So even if you can't provide a technical cite please do not feel slighted.

Thanks for your help and indulgence.

 

[Dakguy201]

Maybe then you need to have crash standards that are realistic,trying to build trains in the future that will travel at up to 200 mph is going to be very hard if everything is built like a tank.Best way to survive a collision is not have one in the first place.....

Poor weldwork? Where were the Acelas built then?

The Acelas are a product of a Bombardier-Alstrom joint venture. Initial assembly was at LaPocatiere, Canada with the final production work occuring at Barre, Vt.

 

[Neil_M]

The main problem with them is the low quality of weldwork and the fact that the construction is essentially under specified for the trains colossal weight. As a result, joints and panels flex more than then they should and the metal on several sets are already showing noticeable fatigue.

Could you perhaps provide some cites to documentation about this? I would really like to learn more about this. I have heard this claim thrown around blithely by everyone ranging all the way upto Gunn, but mostly by implications and innuendos. I would really like to get a handle on this from a technical perspective if I could.

Please note that I am not challenging your claim or anything like that. I would genuinely like to learn more about it so that I can talk about this from a more informed position. So even if you can't provide a technical cite please do not feel slighted.

Thanks for your help and indulgence.

A technical cite? From GML? Sheesh dude, you ask too much.

Budd cars ate my burger. :lol:

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Maybe then you need to have crash standards that are realistic,trying to build trains in the future that will travel at up to 200 mph is going to be very hard if everything is built like a tank.

Is it? I thought the way the physics equations work out, the force you need to accelerate a given mass forward is going to be proportional to the mass, and the force you can apply before the wheels slip is going to be proportional to the weight on the powered wheels, and so if you don't care what the electric bill is and can build sufficiently powerful traction motors and don't run into problems with needing an excessively heavy main transformer and the fraction of the train's weight on the powered axles is constant as you vary the weight of the train, you can add arbitrary amounts of weight to the train without really affecting the maximum speed.

And then there's also the question of how much extra weight is really needed.

Best way to survive a collision is not have one in the first place.....

While avoiding collisions is certainly an excellent goal, I'm not sure it's wise to be so confident that they won't ever happen that you end up skimping on crashworthiness. I'm reminded of things like the Titanic, or the US Navy's SUBSAFE program.

It is not clear that any existing or proposed passenger train in the US that would cover more than 50 miles in a one seat ride isn't sharing track with freight at some point along its route. And better rolling stock seems to be a lot easier to come up with than raising the standards for track along an entire route.

 

[Neil_M]

Maybe then you need to have crash standards that are realistic,trying to build trains in the future that will travel at up to 200 mph is going to be very hard if everything is built like a tank.

Is it? I thought the way the physics equations work out, the force you need to accelerate a given mass forward is going to be proportional to the mass, and the force you can apply before the wheels slip is going to be proportional to the weight on the powered wheels, and so if you don't care what the electric bill is and can build sufficiently powerful traction motors and don't run into problems with needing an excessively heavy main transformer and the fraction of the train's weight on the powered axles is constant as you vary the weight of the train, you can add arbitrary amounts of weight to the train without really affecting the maximum speed.

And then there's also the question of how much extra weight is really needed.

Best way to survive a collision is not have one in the first place.....

While avoiding collisions is certainly an excellent goal, I'm not sure it's wise to be so confident that they won't ever happen that you end up skimping on crashworthiness. I'm reminded of things like the Titanic, or the US Navy's SUBSAFE program.

It is not clear that any existing or proposed passenger train in the US that would cover more than 50 miles in a one seat ride isn't sharing track with freight at some point along its route. And better rolling stock seems to be a lot easier to come up with than raising the standards for track along an entire route.

The Acela weighs 566 tonnes for 6 cars and 2 power cars, a TGV Duplex weighs 380 tonnes for 8 double decker trailers and 2 power cars. Given that SNCF have always strived for a 17.5 tonne axle loading for high speed running, something will have to give in order to run at 186mph or faster in the US. A higher axle load just means you beat the track up faster.

Sure you can build the train as heavy as you want, but that defeats the object of the exercise really doesn't it?

I remain entirely unconvinced by crashworthiness values, building bigger and heavier trains to be 'safer' is an exercise in futility if there isn't even the signalling there to stop the trains crashing in the first place. A look at the mess of the front coach in the Chatsworth crash shows just how pointless it is, no doubt that car had reached some sort of nominal crashworthiness and the loco telescoping into it showed just how 'safe' that was.

The best crashworthiness is not to have one in the first place. I will never be convinced of anything different.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

The Acela weighs 566 tonnes for 6 cars and 2 power cars, a TGV Duplex weighs 380 tonnes for 8 double decker trailers and 2 power cars. Given that SNCF have always strived for a 17.5 tonne axle loading for high speed running, something will have to give in order to run at 186mph or faster in the US. A higher axle load just means you beat the track up faster.

It sounds like the Acela's weight per passenger is roughly double the TGV's. While a factor of two probably increases the maintenance cost if the track is similarily constructed, it doesn't sound like a catostrophic increase to me. Hasn't the Chunnel survived to some extent in spite of what some might consider excessive safety regulation?

I remain entirely unconvinced by crashworthiness values, building bigger and heavier trains to be 'safer' is an exercise in futility if there isn't even the signalling there to stop the trains crashing in the first place. A look at the mess of the front coach in the Chatsworth crash shows just how pointless it is, no doubt that car had reached some sort of nominal crashworthiness and the loco telescoping into it showed just how 'safe' that was.

IIRC, the Chatsworth equipment was built to older, less rigorous crashworthiness standards, possibly even than what would be used for brand new 88 MPH commuter coaches being ordered today.

Not everyone on board that train was killed, so while the crashworthiness of that train may not have been a complete success, it wasn't a complete failure, either.

The best crashworthiness is not to have one in the first place.

Certainly, but until you have solid data that proves that you've gotten this right, it's probably unwise to assume you have. In the case of the 1987 Maryland collision, I believe the cab signaling equipment was available, merely not being maintained correctly in the cab of the freight locomotive. Is there any technique for supervising a group of tens of thousands of maintenance workers to ensure that that sort of sloppiness will never, ever, ever happen again?

 

[Neil_M]

Certainly, but until you have solid data that proves that you've gotten this right, it's probably unwise to assume you have. In the case of the 1987 Maryland collision, I believe the cab signaling equipment was available, merely not being maintained correctly in the cab of the freight locomotive. Is there any technique for supervising a group of tens of thousands of maintenance workers to ensure that that sort of sloppiness will never, ever, ever happen again?

Is that any excuse not to have any form of cab signalling or even no signalling at all?

Better to train staff and maintain properly, especially in litigation happy America?

Every crash is different in its happening and aftermath, surely its better to design to not have a crash rather than try to mitigate its effects after the impact? Data or no data surely you must see that that's a more sensible approach?

That's the way most other railways try to work, rather than trying to build rail borne dodgem cars to bounce off each other.

 

[jis]

The Acela weighs 566 tonnes for 6 cars and 2 power cars, a TGV Duplex weighs 380 tonnes for 8 double decker trailers and 2 power cars. Given that SNCF have always strived for a 17.5 tonnes axle loading for high speed running, something will have to give in order to run at 186mph or faster in the US. A higher axle load just means you beat the track up faster.

I agree with the basic point you are making, but thought that I would bring up an issue looking a little deeper behind those numbers.

So Acelas have 566 tonnes carried on 32 axles giving an average axle load of around 17.7 tonnes, whereas the TGV Dupleix has 2x4 + 8x2 + 2 = 26 axles carrying 380 tonnes giving an average axle load of around 14.6 tonnes per axle. Notice that the real problem with Acela is that the power heads are too heavy for 4 axles. The trailers are heavy too, but not extraordinarily so. If some sort of crash management system were allowed that allows the power heads to deform way more to absorb the collision than they are allowed now, they could potentially be considerably lighter. The issue is not necessarily about passenger safety or even driver safety, but how much a portion of the train that is normally not carrying any living being is allowed to deform to save the rest of the train. Not taking that fully into consideration in rule setting would appear to be one of the fundamental failing of the FRA at present.

Weight per passenger is a somewhat meaningless number since that depends on how densely passengers are packed into a car. The seat pitch in TGVs, specially in second class is way way smaller than on Acleas, and Acela first class is outright luxurious compared to TGV first class. I am also not sure if the jump seats by the door are actually counted as passengers in the passenger count for TGVs.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I do not have the documentation. I have seen and read some, and I have had my cousin, who works at Ivy City, explain it to me at some length, but I don't have any publicly available documentation I can cite.

If anyone else does, please post it.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Is that any excuse not to have any form of cab signalling or even no signalling at all?

Maybe we should ban the operation of vehicles by amateurs that have no cab signaling (by which I'm thinking of automobiles) if professionals operating with no cab signaling can't even get it right?

I also don't think I was really trying to say that crashworthiness is a substitute for better signaling and/or employee training. Just that I think relaxing crashworthiness standards before we have solid data showing we have actually improved signaling and/or employee training is a poor idea.

Better to train staff and maintain properly

Those are certainly also good ideas.

Every crash is different in its happening and aftermath, surely its better to design to not have a crash rather than try to mitigate its effects after the impact? Data or no data surely you must see that that's a more sensible approach?That's the way most other railways try to work, rather than trying to build rail borne dodgem cars to bounce off each other.

For a start, we'd need to fully grade separate all passenger train ROWs. The only Amtrak routes that have no grade crossings with automobiles are probably the NEC trains that only operate NYP to WAS, and those equipment pools do need to go through grade crossings in eastern Connecticut and some of that equipment also goes through grade crossings in other places.

 

[jis]

I do not have the documentation. I have seen and read some, and I have had my cousin, who works at Ivy City, explain it to me at some length, but I don't have any publicly available documentation I can cite.

Thanks GML.

 

[birdy]

"For a start, we'd need to fully grade separate all passenger train ROWs. The only Amtrak routes that have no grade crossings with automobiles are probably the NEC trains that only operate NYP to WAS, and those equipment pools do need to go through grade crossings in eastern Connecticut and some of that equipment also goes through grade crossings in other places."

You got that right. The inherent unsafety of at-grade crossings is just huge. The grade separation of true HSR is probably the sum and substance of its superior safety record.

I don't pretend to understand the "inside baseball" of the problems of Acela deployment that you-all discuss. Just the observation that there is a hidden and in many cases continuing cost of "making do" I'm not saying that we should abandon everything but true HSR. I am saying that running lots of souped up diesels through at grade crossings at 110 mph is going to have consequences that need to be taken into account.