The January Phillips column pointed this out in the PNRP:
“Going forward, PTC, in combination with other technologies and strategies, can offer levels of passenger protection that can be incorporated into new equipment design standards.” page 26, PNRP.
Phillips says this technology means the FRA will be able to drop the overly heavy construction standards for passenger cars and move toward the lighter Euro/Japanese designs standards.
What, if anything real, does this really mean? Could our passenger stock be lighter weight and thus perform at higher speeds more easily and cheaply?
In effect, yes. In theory, yes. But will North America give up on its heavy guage is another question. An Alstom VP several years ago told me several years ago there is a lot of technology being used around the world which cannot be used in the US because of how heavy and virtually overbuilt our equipment has to be. The idea Phillips alludes is that in Europe they work toward preventing accidents while in North America they work at making accidents safer. Could such thinking be overcome here?
Phillips tells a couple of stories in regard to this issue. One was an unflattering nickname the French engineers had for the modified overweight test train that led to Acela. The other was how a TGV derailed at speed, but because of very strong solid connections between cars, they all stayed upright and aligned and nobody was killed.
Spain’s RENFE, the operator of its intercity service, latest model is a Seimans built train designated RENFE 103. Rather than power cars on each end, it uses a distributed power system in the same concept that was employed by Amtrak’s Metro Liner. The 8800 HP train has seating capacity for 404 and a top speed of 217MPH.
The Acela motors generate 12,000 HP (6,000 at each end) carries 304 passengers at a top speed of 150MPH.
I have no technical knowledge that would let me asses the difference in power usage and costs, but these numbers seem to say something.
To add to the previous, here in the US we seem to be fairly obsessed withthe idea that our vehicles of all types should survive any crash. If they weren’t so pricey, some would probably own Abrams as a POV.
That does not seem to be a view that is shared by people in other parts of the world. On the other hand, in spite of the very large number of scooters I saw being used in Spain, I saw no riders without heavy duty head protection. Go figure.
I tried to find weight, etc., for comparisons. Couldn’t find the weight for an 8 car Acela set but the similar, unpowered LCE cars weigh 113 tons each, so the 8 car Acela (2 end units heavier) must weigh in at more than 900 tons. By comparison, TGV’s in France are 383 (empty) tons for an 8 car set with all cars powered. The ICE 3 trainsets in Germany are very similar to the Velaro sets Siemens built for Spain, 409 vs. 425 tons, both have 8 cars, all powered. No wonder it takes so much more horsepower to move that much mass.
Europeans work at prevention solutions as suggested by Phillips. They work at not having a crash rather than figuring out how to survive one. So if you follow Phillis’ logic that if you install safeguards you decrease accidents. Without accidents you can lighten equipment, save energy, go faster, and use proven technologies (which are also less costly than reinventing the wheel.
Very true. I wonder if we’ll move forward? I suspect there are many who would welcome a return to the real heavyweight coaches and pullmans of the 1940’s.
I don’t know if I would characterize the connections between cars as very strong and solid. That seems to imply substantial structural strength. I recall an account attributing the stability of the train after derailing at around 180 mph to the body motion dampers in conjunction with the articulation. [The accident was caused by ground subsidence following an abandoned mine collapse.]
In any event, axle loads for VHST are kept under 17 tonnes (37,400 lbs), even for double-deckers.
Frontal impact strength of 500,000 lbs was given for one VHST; but I don’t know if this is representative of the UIC standard.
I kind of doubt we’ll ever be able to take “off the shelf” European equipment as long as 8000 ton freight trains are roaming around in proximity to the passenger trains and there is some mixed use. But is sounds like the FRA is willing to consider trading the reduced risk of head and rear end collisions for some design that would allow the equipment to absorb a punch rather than just take a punch. Also, you’d be designing for sideswipes and derailments more than collisions.
You can think of the European/Asian approach as “preventing the accident” and the U.S. approach as “surviving the accident.” Given the differences in use of the rail system between Europe/Asia and the U.S. as mentioned above, this divergence in approach is logical.
There’s been lots, and lots, and lots, of talk about the FRA potentially relaxing its crashworthiness standards for lines with PTC installed. My own conversations with the FRA at a senior level about this matter have indicated only that the FRA has “heard” this talk, not that they have any intent to agree with all the people who think this is what the FRA ought to be doing. Given the FRA’s DNA, and how the public does things in this country, I’m a little dismayed that this talk about what the FRA ought to be doing is even happening because it is more likely to concrete people inside and outside the Beltway into their existing positions than to incentive people to change their positions. I
t would be better if there was some actual science done before people leap to the conclusion that happens to be the answer they want to hear. Show me the comprehensive study that proves that safety goes up when vehicle strength goes down, and then you might have something worth talking about.
I never rode in a heavyweight sleeper, but have ridden in many heavyweight coaches. It has been said that the heavyweight cars “rode like Pullmans.” If the equipment is lighter, is it easier to maintain the track properly?
I don’t think that is what they are saying. I don’t know how the Euro/Japanese systems work but the evidence is out there in actual mileage experience - safe and lighter. I don’t see the need to reinvent the wheel. Perhaps if we can separate freight from most passenger, we could proceed with major passenger improvements at a much cheaper price.
I certainly agree with all this. Part of the European/Asian approach to “preventing” is generally to run the high speed passenger trains on lines not used by freight trains. Although Phillip’s describes one case where a high speed train derailed without loss of life, I wouldn’t argue that their approach is the safest from the standpoint of the potential for injury or loss of life. Thinking of the 1998 wreck of a German ICE high speed train maybe, and I repeat maybe, cars constructed to US standards might have resulted in less injury and loss of life. The train was running at
Also thinking about of the cost of purpose built lines, I believe that the signaling, wayside or PTC type, becomes less complicated and perhaps less expensive when not trying to deal with the differences in the train weight/stopping distance factors.
As for maintenance, in a previous thread Railway Man indicated that running one US freight train over tracks built to highest speed specs, Class 9? would likely knock the track out of tolerance.
I really hate to bring this up again but I think that one of the reasons for the heavier weight and crashworthiness of North American passenger equipment is the litigious nature of American society.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? This may be part, but only part, of the problem. Heavy loading guage for heavy hauling led to heavier and heavier equipment for both carriage and protection. Less has been spent on preventing accidents (except in rapid transit, which can also be argued) with more efficient and complete signalling and track maintenance here than elsewhere.