Acela cars were derived from the Canadian Bombardier LRC cars, not TGVs.
All the Amfleet “Sardine Cans” should be given, gratis, to mid-western states, especially Illinois, and be replaced by new ‘Viewliner’ cars. I love the ‘Viewliners’. I did ride an Amfleet coach, on the “Lake Shore Limited”, one December, back when I was poor. Horrible ride, only saved by a nice young lady from Notre Dame, who shared my seat and ($7 Amtrak) blanket. I bought the blanket – it was cold! That was interesting. She called me “Sir”, all the way to her Syracuse de-training.
Hays
Why the Midwest, especially Illinois? Perhaps they’d be better in Montana!
Some thoughts and questions on Acela:
- I thought I read some time ago that the LRC active tilt had been deactivated?
- Does anyone know if the floor height in the LRC coach section is a few inches lower than at the vestibule?
- The Acela tilt suspension was derived from, if not identical, to the LRC. The TGV is quite different beside the cars being articulated.
- The LRC’s were quite light and stopped running in the US long before the International was discontinued, causing me to wonder if they did not meet US buff requirements and needed to be beefed up for the Acela?
Thank you for considering the Midwest worthy only of making do with hand-me-downs so you can get Viewliners. The last new equipment we saw were the Horizons developed primarily for NEC use. Maybe your state could fund gauntlet tracks and high level platforms in Illinois so we can use Amfleet?
?? Amfleet can operate on low level platforms. The vestibules on both ends have traps.
Harvey K400—
The following AMTRAK report on fleet plans states on pg 41 that certain agencys do not want bi-level equipment because of perceived passenger reluctance to accept the bi-levels instead of single levels. If you get bi-levels then you do not have to worry.
. http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer/Page/1241245669222/1237608345018
Edit:: This is AMTRAK reports. Go half way down page to Comprehensive Business Plans: Click on Fleet Strategy Plan
The report states also that bi-levels would cost less per pass seat both for acquisition and operating costs. The costs of shorter platforms was also mentioned. The bi-levels in the report says AMTRAK is looking at are the California cars which are already qualified for 125 MPH where as Superliners only are qualified to 110 MPH PGS 90 - 99. Report also states agencys will need to come up with the per seat cost differences above their mandated match.
I personally believe a very large bi-level f
You like steep, narrow steps? Fine! Take the Amfleet yourself. I’ll take a Talgo.
Since the Midwest, particularly Illinois, has made an investment in the State-funded services for years, it would seem we should get some new equipment suitable for our region for a change, instead of more discards from the NE.
Couldn’t find link for fleet plans.
Talgos, for lack of any other low floor tilting train, would be beneficial to some degree on all Midwest routes. Ironically, the one place where bi-levels may be needed is for Hiawatha service where Wisconsin has ordered two Talgos and is set to order two more for the extension to Madison.
I can only speculate that a comparison was made between an Amfleet-type and Superliner type car. Why a bi-level would be poorly received is a mystery until I can see the report.
[quote user=“blue streak 1”]
Harvey K400—
The following AMTRAK report on fleet plans states on pg 41 that certain agencys do not want bi-level equipment because of perceived passenger reluctance to accept the bi-levels instead of single levels. If you get bi-levels then you do not have to worry.
. http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer/Page/1241245669222/1237608345018
The report states also that bi-levels would cost less per pass seat both for acquisition and operating costs. The costs of shorter platforms was also mentioned. The bi-levels in the report says AMTRAK is looking at are the California cars which are already qualified for 125 MPH where as Superliners only are qualified to 110 MPH PGS 90 - 99. Report also states agen
Havey: Sorry I did not list whole sequence. Here it is.
. http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer/Page/1241245669222/1237608345018
Edit:: This is AMTRAK reports. Go half way down page to Comprehensive Business Plans: Click on Fleet Strategy Plan
The study that states that “wide body” and “truck instability” at higher speeds caught my attention about the tilting problem.
The study also suggests that new-generation trains can achieve 180-200 mph on existing, non-improved infrastructure.
I did quite enjoy and totally accept the idea that intermediate catenary supports could support Acela at 150 mph south of New York as an intermediary measure.
This paper needs to be taken with a grain of salt, and I’m rather leery of the lack of sources in the paper.
Got it. Thank you very much.
Quick comments:
-
Unsubstantiated conclusion or generalization that buying new was cheaper in long run. I can understand if there is a reliability problem such as with the HHP-8 or ADA or FRA compliance issue such as were stated. The driving issue seems to be for sustained, commercially viable [domestic] car and locomotive manufacturing enterprises predicated on the volume from replacement rather than just the need for expanded services.
-
Tilting, beneficial for most if not all routes, is not addressed.
-
State concerns for public acceptance of bi-levels seems to be subjective. The lower cost per seat of bi-level equipment is noted.
-
A universal single-level high-floor car has limitations; yet this is divorced from the planned replacement of Acela only because Acela no steps for low level platforms.
-
Conservative equipment needs reflects growth of core NEC+long distance network with caveat that additional equipment may be needed for expanding State services.
Harvey
If “wide body,” “truck instability,” and “achieve 180-200 mph on existing…infrastructure” were in the Amtrak Fleet Strategic Plan, I missed it.
Harvey
I understood that to mean that the construction of constant tension catenary on the south end of the corridor would allow reuse of the existing catenary poles by adding new ones in between. It’s not a half-way step, really. Just a construction detail.
That’s a little different than my take that it would be difficult to support both new and old catenary from an existing pole or bridge in addition to the issue of distance between supports.
Harvey
The way I understand the CAT problem is that the current variable tension PRR cat will work up to 125 -135 MPH (depending on temperature). Above that speed the CAT bounces up and down at various rates causing the PAN not to follow the wire and the contact between the two makes and breaks. By adding a horizontal support 1/2 way between the present PRR horizontals ( perpendicular to track) the variable tension cat will not bounce at speeds up to 150 MPH. Above that speed constant tension is needed. The current PRR spacing is too far apart for constant tension and the intermediate horizontals will fix that problem as well. So the intermediate horizontals will be needed any way for constant tension. I have been trying to find out what maximum spacing can be used for constant tension but so far have had no luck.
I think the Siemens website might have that info.
Contact, arcing, is a problem; but I think worse issues arise at extreme temperatures. Wires get pulled down by the train in extreme weather (and rip off the pantograph) at conventional speeds. The force and harmonics of the pan may be too much for more brittle and stretched copper wire at low temperatures; and the expansion and sagging of the contact wire may be prone to whipping around the pan in high temperatures. The hot weather sagging between supports, like waves, also produce a bounce at the supports.
[quote user=“blue streak 1”]
The way I understand the CAT problem is that the current variable tension PRR cat will work up to 125 -135 MPH (depending on temperature). Above that speed the CAT bounces up and down at various rates causing the PAN not to follow the wire and the contact between the two makes and breaks. By adding a horizontal support 1/2 way between the present PRR horizontals ( perpendicular to track) the variable tension cat will not bounce at speeds up to 150 MPH. Above that speed constant tension is needed. The current PRR spacing is too far apart for constant tension and the intermediate horizontals will fix that problem as well. So the intermediate horizontals will be needed any way for constant tension. I have been trying to find out what maximum spacing can be used for constant tension but so far have had no luck.
[quote user=“HarveyK400”]
That’s a little different than my take that it would be difficult to support both new and old catenary from an existing pole or bridge in addition to the issue of distance between supports.
Harvey
[quote user=“oltmannd”]
I understood that to mean that the construction of constant tension catenary on the south end of the corridor would allow reu
Harvey: Absolutely correct. The only thing is pure copper wire is no longer used for new Eurpean HSR but an alloy and maybebe even a center core of different lighter weight metal depending on the temperature extremes at any location. One item is the lighter the CAT is the better the interaction of the PAN and the wire by reducing harmonics Of course current carrying capacity has to be considered therefor the trend towards 25Kv CAT to reduce weight.