Maybe production for the next squeeze test will start and soon be passed ?
They should pay for all costs related to delay and reimburse for any grant money lost in my view. We all hope that was written into the contract as a standard performance clause but given that government was involved it could have been left out.
This falls under the “liquidated damages” portion of the contract. How much and for how long should be specified in the language.
Unconfirmed Nippon (NS) is reported to be experiencing more delays.
That article indicated they were going to resume building “parts” for the multistate order. Perhaps that could be an expression of confidence that their problem with the basic design is well on the way to being solved, but I haven’t seen anything that indicates they believe it has been overcome.
A synopsis of where things stand at the moment: http://ccrail.com/next-generation-bi-levels-for-midwest-corridors-a-failed-procurement-threatens-the-future-of-state-sponsored-corridor-trains/
And don’t forget to download and read the NGEC meeting minutes, too.
Unintended humor: what kind of stiff-necked attitude do the ‘statuary appointees’ mentioned in the article have? Are they brought in just to sit there, be silent, and look decorative?
Statuary appointees? At the rate this project is proceeding, they are statues.
I still do not understand why Metra and the various consortia use this 60 year-old design? They are not a pleasant ride on Metra.
It’s a pleasant ride for me and I’ve been riding Metra’s gallery coaches twice a day since 1980. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
Gallery cars as used in Chicagoland and the bi-levels used in California are two different animals. As for ride quality, those are distant, fuzzy memories.
I agree. In fact when I take the South Shore into town, I hope for the bi levels, as they are a far nicer ride over the single level cars.
I’ve ridden C&NW, RTA and Metra bi-levels for years. The old P-S cars ride better than newer ones. But if one has not ridden bi-levels in other places, such as San Diego or abroad in Germany, etc. you really do not know what you are missing.
I suppose you think the airlines still should buy and use plane designs basically unchanged since the 1950s? You drive a 1958 sedan still?
When it comes to passenger comfort (and that’s what this thread should be about, not some arbitrary design date) Damn straight I do. That’s one of the reasons why I always chose an Aspen Convair flight on Colorado Springs, Denver flights over Rocky Mountain Dash 7s when that choice was available.
Suppose you’d prefer cross country flight on a “modern” CRJ, after all they are built by Bombardier. Spent a lot of time and miles on both -100s and -700s. If you think modern is comfortable you need to go for a ride.
I’ve said it before and I still stand by it.
I’ve ridden bi levels in North America (California cars, El Cap cars, Bombardier commuter cars, east coast style cars [MBTA etc.]
[quote user=“Buslist”]
schlimm
CSSHEGEWISCH
schlimm
I still do not understand why Metra and the various consortia use this 60 year-old design? They are not a pleasant ride on Metra.
It’s a pleasant ride for me and I’ve been riding Metra’s gallery coaches twice a day since 1980. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
I suppose you think the airlines still should buy and use plane designs basically unchanged since the 1950s?
When it comes to passenger comfort (and that’s what this thread should be about, not some arbitrary design date) Damn straight I do. That’s one of the reasons why I always chose an Aspen Convair flight on Colorado Springs, Denver flights over Rocky Mountain Dash 7s when that choice was available.
Suppose you’d prefer cross country flight on a “modern” CRJ, after all they are built by Bombardier. Spent a lot of time and miles on both -100s and -700s. If you think modern is comfortable you need to go for a ride.
I’ve said it before and I still stand by it.
&nbs
Guys, this was fun to watch until the popcorn ran out, but I think we have to set some limits on terminology before the insults (perceived or otherwise) get started.
There are two separate definitions of ‘ride quality’ tacitly rolled up in this conversation. I had thought that the discussion invoked the engineering definition of this, which is largely concerned with primary and secondary suspension characteristics and some of the fundamental-frequency and NVH attenuation features of the carbody. But the recent posts are getting more and more involved with the ‘quality of the ride’ sort of thing: is there adequate headroom and lighting? is access to the upper or gallery level adequate? can the conductor take up the ticket without pushing past you? is the track better aligned and maintained? … in other words, stuff that is not particularly related, and not particularly germane, to discussing how Nippon Sharyo is optimizing the design of their (hopefully) repeat-buildable car to be useful for all the prospective future markets.
I found the point about “1958 design” to be particularly amusing in light of the extended Checker designation found in another thread. For many years, we all loved riding in Checkers because of the interior room, and tolerated some of the buckboard ride quality because the taxicab alternatives were worse in some very lame ways – still are, if they are things like thinly-converted Town Cars that wallow a bit worse after every pothole. That, like the B-52, is an example of something that got functionally optimized fairly early, and needed little more than detail or materials improvement over time to remain good.
Now, when someone builds a new, lighter, more economical vehicle that has the same space advantage and longevity as a Marathon, like some of the more modern vans (or the London taxi adaptations) you can expect to see them eventually preferred over the 1958 packaging. No one, for example, thought of Che
Ride quality, in toto, is more than just the quality of the suspension. The opinions of the gallery design are clearly subjective, but that tends to be in the nature of the beast. The design is old and dated. Even the most recent builds generally use the old 50s design concept. The cars were a fine replacement for the old commuter cars they replaced. The main goal was efficiency - pack the most people in an 85 foot car without using 3-2 seating. It succeeded. The old P-S cars (still some on the UP West line) actually ride better than the newer M-Ks or N-S cars. Someone suggested the weight may be a factor. The newer cars have more underbody and body noises than the P-S ones or Budds. The interiors of all are reminiscent of a cell block with rather poor seating comfort compared to some commuter bilevels elsewhere. Those are the subjective impressions of a fairly wide sample of folks, most of whom are not rail devotees.
This defines the scope of the discussion quite well.
The ‘next step’ might be to take up the modern designs that provide better “packaging” of passengers, or better ingress/egress or standee accommodation, and look both at what “best practice” in particular situations might be and also in how to construct and maintain vehicles that accomplish it.
To start - where in Europe is there better equipment that could be translated into American practice (or adapted to suit American legal requirements, including a squeeze test where necessary)? What approaches to rider comfort and ride quality could or should be implemented in a modern design, especially one (as this Nippon Sharyo design was I think intended) that is meant to become a default construction standard or ‘design family’ for many prospective car orders over the next 35 years or so? And what design optimizations are, and aren’t, necessary in making this wi
Ride quality IMO has several components. The above mentioned itsms certainly are components. Also the track conditions.
Track conditions depend on
-
Local soil conditions. ROW that is subject to techtonic stressses will definitely cause any where from major up heavels to micro shifts.
-
Soil conditions that are sediment or sandy soil may shift constantly.
-
There can be other locations that have track built over various kinds of rock each kind will affect track differently
-
When track built may have proper to minimum sub grade work. Our subdivision has a permanent MAS of 50 MPH because it was built as a ridge runner before the civil war just laid on the ground. Surfacing is occurring as often as every 9 months. There is still improper drainage in places. Suspect that the subgrade that Downeaster has to navigate is not started below the freeze depth and that has caused some of its ride problems.
-
Present day subgrade work often is as deep as 10 ft below final planned rail elevation.
-
Then if proper subgrade work is done including fabric is installed to prevent dirt coming up thru sub and ballast. If all that is done then proper ballasting is next.
-
Timely surfacing of the track depending on how the subgrade acts thru various weather.
-
Much of the old PRR ROW needs undercutting to clean the ballast and top part of the sub grade. That is because there is no fabric protection although have seen ads for machine that can undercut and install fabric.
-
Final line of defense is scheduling surfacing before track looses its level. There are reports that the Capitol corridor is a very smooth ride. The agency contracted with UP to pay for a crew surfacing twice as often as UP would have done for just their freights.
-
So the worse the subgrade the more often the track w