Amtrak began two Acela NY- DC roundtrips this morning. The remaining 18 train sets are to be returned to service as soon as they get their brakes replaced. That is supposed to take until September.
Of the six train sets stored at Philly’s 30th St. Station since the problems surfaced, one has been removed but the rest continue to sit, as of this morning.
The Business Section of today’s (July 12, 2005) Washington Post had drawings comparing the designs of the old Acela Express brake disk and the new Acela express brake disk, and the newer design appears to be stiffer and more durable. According to an earlier article one of the probable causes of the premature cracking in the brake disks was the high level of self-excited vibratory stresses in the disks which are induced by the friction between the disk and the caliper when the brake is applied. The key features of the new design are a wider spoke cross section coupled with a shorter spoke height which should make the brake disk stiffer, and reduce the level of the self-excited vibratory stresses
According to the article in the Washington Post four train sets were retrofitted with the new brake disk design, but only two train sets are in service; the other two train sets are being held in reserve. However, this brings up some questions. Why weren’t the more durable brake disks used in the original brake system design? Is/are the cause(s) of the premature cracking in their brake rotor disks fully known? If not, I still wonder if these trains may not have been returned to service prematurely. A fix for the problem was developed, but how thoroughly was it evaluated?
This suggests to me the possibility of testing one of the backup train sets more extensively to see what else can go wrong. If at all possible the evaluation program should include accelerated stress testing of the disk brake system at the AAR/DOT Transportation Test Facility in Pueblo, CO. It does little good to put the Acela Express trains in service, only to have to pull the entire fleet out of service for an extended period of time because some defect shows up to compromise their safety.
…Surely that brake disk and calibre assembly could be set up on a test machine to test for duty cycle evaluation without taking a full train out of service to do the testing. Plus a close monitoring can be done on the two in service.
Our paper did have a pic of an Acela at a station being readed for service.
[X-)]It’s all about greed. Where to save a dollar, here and there[}:)]! There are a myriad of problems that arose when these trains went into service[%-)]. Some of these problems were known ahead of time and some cropped up when the trainsets finally were in revenue service. For fear of getting fired, I can’t tell you the disposition nor the way the company handled some of these situations[
]. I can tell you this, the company’s equipment maintenance service personnel were(and still are) diligent in the performance of their assigned daily duties, trying against all odds, keeping these trainsets running[2c][soapbox]!! You can’t do much else, when you have a bunch of [:o)]'s,[D)]'s and [oX)]'s running this company. It’s not the union aggrement employees bringing this company down, but management personnel.
GLENN
A R E A L RAILROADER!!!
A R E A L AMTRAKER!!!
MORE ACELA EXPRESS RESTORATIONS
THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL METROLINERS WILL BECOME ACELA
EXPRESS TRAINS, AS MORE TRAINSETS ARE NOW AVAILABLE.
WEEKDAYS, EFFECTIVE MONDAY, JULY 18:
NEW CONVERSION TO ACELA: 2106, 2109, 2121, 2122.
EXISTING ACELA TRAINS: 2102, 2107, 2120, 2123.
SATURDAYS, EFFECTIVE JULY 16:
NEW CONVERSION TO ACELA: 2207, 2216, 2220.
SUNDAYS, EFFECTIVE JULY 17:
NEW CONVERSION TO ACELA: 2213, 2222, 2225.
SUNDAY METROLINER 2220 RENUMBERED 2230 TO AVOID
CONFUSION WITH SATURDAY ACELA EXPRESS 2220.
…Good…Get the one’a available running and start bringing in revenue…
Did the original Acelas–the ones born in Sweden or wherever–have chronic brake troubles? If not, is there anything different about standard design or Bombardier’s way of building them that might lead us to look at a manufacturing error? I gather the Acelas did not lack for maintenance when out on the road.
I’m very glad that they’re back in service, and can’t wait until September. [:)]
The Acela was NOT a proven off-the-shelf design. It was specifically designed for Amtrak. I think David Gunn believes this was a mistake. I am NOT quoting him, I am simply putting together comments heard from some of his associates and former associates and various consultants. I think David Gunn wishes they had simply modified the German high speed train that gave excellent regular service when tested in the Corridor on regular Metroliner Schedules. It was reliable and the modificaitons would have been reasonable. He was not running the show at the time, competitive bidding and “Buy America” were considerations, but clever people could have written the specifications to meet all these requirements and still gotten the reliable train that was obviously both off the shelf and equipped to do the job.
We need to keep in mind that there have been teething problems in the past with new equipment on the NEC. The original Metroliners in 1969 and the electrification itself in 1935 are prime examples. In retrospect, the 61 original Metroliner MU cars were more like prototypes then a proven design so a prolonged de-bugging process was probably inevitable. While the GG1 is held as an excellent locomotive, it was the culmination of several earlier designs from several sources so de-bugging was not an issue. It was, in fact, a response to the problems with the P5a in high-speed service and still had to win a competition with the R1 before it went into production.
The problems with the Metroliners and the Acelas are probably due in part to the desire to get them into service as quickly as possible.
These things seem to be cursed didn’t they have some trouble last year. [xx(]
James[C):-)]
I remember something too, but don’t think it was in the brakes.