Amtrak has released their long range fleet plan (99 pages). This plan is originally for years 2014,2019,2024,2030. It appears comprehensive and well thought out. It is copy-righted so no direct quotes will be presented here.
The UA Turbo Train hit 170mph in the same straight stretch the Westinghouse Metroliners exceeded 150mph. Later tests with the ICE and X-2000 in the same area also approached or exceeded the 150mph mark. Otherwise, NY-DC curves need 8.5" tilt with the existing 4" cant (elevation of outer rail above inner) just for 135mph. 150mph would require 11.5" tilt, 165mph would need 14.5", and 180mph would need 18" with 4" cant.
Maybe cant could be increased a couple inches to mitigate the amount of tilt. That’s still shifting much of the vehicle weight and increasing lateral forces against the outer rail. I wonder if Pueblo made any evaluations of wheel-rail forces, tracking, wear, and surface and alignment degradation?
To some extent, active tilting may roll the vehicle body which may reduce the lateral displacement and clearance envelop. The problem encountered on the old New Haven and may apply to the Pennsy was lack of space and cost to widen track centers for clearance to allow full tilting. It will be interesting.
Catenary improvements for higher speeds seem moot if 135mph is the limit; but service reliability and damage repair costs argue for conversion to constant tension.
Harvey: Correct again. If the supports have a new supplemental at the half way point the variable tension sag will be much less. (speeds up to 150MPH) Then after that upgrade the constant tension will reduce sag even more. (150+ MPH).
NEC (and the upper end of the Hudson Line) have 6" superelevation. The legal limit is 6" but the frt RRs generally limit to 4" to keep maintenance costs down. The Altanta to Greenville portion of the old Southern main line still has 5" superelevation to allow 60 mph running on 3 degree curves with no overbalance.
I saw 4" cant for the Northeast Corridor somewhere and it coincided with reverse engineering the question with conventional (Heritage) equipment limited to 100 mph with an allowable 2.78" cant deficiency. A cant of 6" on the NEC would allow 110 mph for Regionals with 2.20" cant deficiency and a negligible 0.78" cant deficiency for long-distance Heritage-equipped trains.
A cant of 5" for a 3-degree curve on ATL-GRV would result in a 2.32" cant deficiency at 60 mph or equilibrium at 49.6 mph. I’m rather interested in that because of the opportunities I see for expanded Amtrak service to Atlanta: CLT-ATL, RAL-ATL & WAS-LYH-ATL. That same 5" cant would allow 75 mph (76.8) for a Cascade Talgo (eu=-7") or, as an example, 90 mph for a 2nd-generation Acela-type tilt train allowing 11.5" cant deficiency. Thankfully, there are relatively few such severe curves; but nevertheless some very auto-competitive trip times could be realized with extensive running at 110 mph.
Such high cant is problematical for freight service on the NEC of which apparently little is left. I remember a UP engineer being quoted in Trains some years ago that they tried to keep cant 2" or less and cant deficiency 1.5" or less.
I don’t see the billions needed for two more Hudson River tubes in the immediate future; much less the construction time new capacity would take. For that reason, the only way to improve capacity short-term is to go tri-level for the NEC with a NJT/LIRR-type car. Trains like the Palmetto and Carolinian could be coupled end-to-end NYP-RIC, or a peak period combined Keystone and Norfolk or Delmarva train NYP-PHL. These also need to be high speed (150+ mph) for the NEC and tilting trains. Some, if not all new Acelas need to be tri-levels as well. A tri-level Acela/East Coast car may represent a larger manufacturing run than separate types of single-level cars. These could be modularized for a Mid-West, Northwest or California bi-lev
I was amused by the section of the report on disposal of the current fleet (page 47). In short, once a vehicle is declared surplus to the operating fleet, including a prudent reserve, it is to be scrapped but not sold. The stated reason is that if it were sold, another party (say a state) might very well refurbish it and request Amtrak to operate it. That would have a negative effect on the various suppliers of new equipment by lowering the total potential market for their component.
I understand the reasoning but distrust Amtrak’s motive. I believe every time VIA turns a wheel of their heritage fleet it is a silent rebuke of Amtrak and their past equipment policies, and this is an attempt to prevent that from recurring.
I guess we need a “Two-minute Hate” for Amfleet cars, perhaps with an orchestrated chant “Amcan, Amcan, Amcan, sardine can, sardine can, sardine can!” After that, we can move on to Horizon cars and then the rest of the fleet.
Senator Claiborne Pell of Rhode Island advanced the “Pell Plan” or the US Department of Transportation Northeast Corridor Demonstration Project. Under that plan, the US-DOT supplied new kinds of passenger trains to the New Haven and Pennsylvania Railroads (later Penn Central) to operate. A turbine-powered train tilting train was to operate between New York and Boston, an electric MU-car train between NY and DC, and a bi-level auto ferry was to operate between DC and Florida. Only the TurboTrain and the Metroliner were built, and the auto ferry concept was later initiated in somewhat different form (passenger riding in coach seats vs in their own automobiles inside air conditioned car carriers) by the private Auto Train corporation.
Both the TurboTrain as well as the Metroliner train were experimental designs built in small quantities that did not hold up well in service. Amtrak under the leadership of Paul Reistrup acquired what were called “metro-shells”, Metroliner “trailer” cars, which where dubbed “Amfleet.” These Amfleet cars were assigned imported Swedish electric locomotives, later built here under license, dubbed “Toasters.” These lightweight, compact, high-horsepower high-adhesion locomotives, pretty much an “off-the-shelf” purchase of what worked in Sweden, were assigned short (four-car) Amfleet trains and were operated on “Metroliner” schedules and were called “Metroliners” in the timetable. This much more reliable replacement for the original Metroliners is pretty much what “saved” Amtrak.
As to the knocks on the Amfleet, back in the late 70’s I made frequent trips between Chicago and Detroit on the imported French Turboliners and later on Amf
Paul: Nice history. But frankly, when all’s said and done, mostly what I hear about the future is this won’t work, there’s this problem, ad nauseam. Other than the Talgo trains, most of what passes for passenger equipment and service here seems like something from some backwater nation 20 years ago. Problems with speed on curves are solved in other countries, but they sound insurmountable here. Maybe what is put forth on this forum and in the Amtrak and FRA and STB publications is too close to the system and can’t grasp the bigger picture. Sorry to sound so philosophically negative and solipsistic, but it sure seems to be a rather grim picture for up to date passenger service in the next 20 years.
"The Chinese bullet train, which has the world’s fastest average speed, connects Guangzhou, the southern coastal manufacturing center, to Wuhan, deep in the interior. In a little more than three hours, it travels 664 miles, comparable to the distance from Boston to southern Virginia. That is less time than Amtrak’s fastest train, the Acela, takes to go from Boston just to New York.
"Even more impressive, the Guangzhou to Wuhan train is just one of 42 high-speed lines recently opened or set to open by 2012 in China. By comparison, the United States hopes to build its first high-speed rail line by 2014, an 84-mile route linking Tampa and Orlando, Fla.
“For Americans, a comparable trip would involve a Boston resident who catches a train to Philadelphia, has lunch near the Liberty Bell, goes to dinner in colonial Williamsburg, Va. and returns home by bedtime.”
Maybe we need to remember the words of RFK & JFK borrowed from G.B. Shaw: “Some men see things as they are and say, ‘Why’? I dream of things that never were and say, ‘Why not’?”
I can see the argument for disposal as a means to prop up a domestic manufacturing capability; but this seems too simplistic and costly. Couldn’t there be a commercially viable re-manufacturing capability to make needed modifications for ADA and FRA compliance, tilting, and modular components? This may reduce the overall need for new equipment; but as I stated in the previous post, an NEC tri-level would consolidate the Acela and single-level car type, hopefully in sufficient numbers for commercial production. The Carolinian, Palmetto, Newport News, Lynchburg and potential Norfolk, Delmarva, Washington-Atlanta could be tri-levels compatible with both the NEC and south of Alexandria.
Talgos may be problematic originating from Washington - I don’t know for sure whether the lower level at Washington Union and Alexandria have high level platforms. Trains originating in Raleigh and south would be other candidates for Talgo services.
Given the relatively small Florida fleet, this would be an appropriate case for re-manufacture and not be the tail that wags the dog.
That shouldn’t be a problem. The Talgos we ran in Wahingtson State did just fine on unmodified platforms when step boxes were used prior to the physical plant improvements made after 1998.
At the very least, Amfleet could be refitted and sold off as commuter rail equipment, serving as feeders for these emerging HSR corridors. It would greatly reduce the start up costs for cities contemplating service and provide Amtrak with more than cash value in return. Amtrak MIGHT even want to be the contract rebuilder for the equipment and make some more money. After all, who has more experience with this equipment than they do.
They just have trouble thinking like a “for profit”…
I would still re-manufacture much of Amfleet with tilting for NEC Regional services that would be the last to be phased out or continue in service beyond the 20-year program. Not every train needs peak capacity.
New service start-ups elsewhere may be a valid application; but not to the point of providing a discriminatory newer fleet for the NEC.
Low tunnel clearances and high level platforms pretty much mandate a tri-level design for the East at the cost of ease in moving through a train at one level. The only other alternative may be a gallery configuration; but I don’t know if this is doable. Then to, a “Western” solution may not be acceptable on the East Coast.
We’ve been discussing the East, but California in particular has a similar problem in that they have a mix of serviceable conventional bi-level and single-level cars and a need for a high-speed tilting bi-level train.
Do you think every single passenger train they have in Europe (or in China for that matters) is a 300 km/hr TGV train? They have a pyramid of service in those places, from the spanking new HSR trains to wheezing secondary-line trains connecting to them.
Don Oltmann suggests that as new trains are acquired, to keep the Amfleet and rebuild or refurbish them to feeder service. It seems that Amtrak doesn’t want to be bothered with “old relics” and some in the advocacy community are “too cool” to have that either.
Tilting trains. Do you think they have tilting trains in Europe apart from a Talgo here and there, an odditiy even in Europe? The Europeans simply run ordinary trains around curves faster – I guess their passengers can hack 6" of cant deficiency without stumbling around.
Guess what. Amfleets with their outboard springs have the required roll stiffness that they tell me they are qualified under FRA waiver to run 6" cant deficiency on New York-Boston. Amfleets are a tilt train. No, they don’t bank inward on curves, but they don’t wallow outward that much either, and you are not going to run more than 6" cant deficiency with Talgo unless people have a whole
I rode the Lyonnaise from Lyon to Paris in 1974 at 140 kph (87 mph) on a line designed for 120 kph (75 mph). That may have been comparable to 6" cant deficiency. Seated, the lean on curves was okay because the track was smooth as glass. Standing or moving car-to-car was very difficult. For passenger safety, the faster speeds were allowed only for all-reserved trains such as the Mistral and Lyonnaise that showed up in Don Steffee’s Speed Survey.
Maybe Amfleet would work as a poor-man’s tilt train; and trips of only a couple hours would not be unbearable in a seat. Horizon and bi-level cars also have outboard bolster springs; but the higher center of gravity of the latter group may restrict allowable cant deficiency more. Given another twenty years service, wouldn’t new tilt suspension trucks be a worthwhile investment for passenger comfort?
The information I had was that the Cascade Talgo F59s were allowed up to 7" cant deficiency. The allowable tilt for Talgo coaches is a little fuzzy, maybe 9-10" cant deficiency. Anyone have authoritative information?
Single level cars still are more difficult to board from low level platforms.