The use of geotextiles was pretty much written off as a waste of time and effort as a result of research conducted by the AAR, the University of MA and AREA committee 1. In examining muddy track sections it was found that almost all the mud was from degraded ballast , almost none from the subgrade (except in some special spots). This was really brought to light when examining muddy spots on ballast deck bridges, interesting how the subgrade jumped up on the bridge.
I think the cars used on the California line from SD to Oceanside are quite pleasant. Bombardier? The design is similar to German double deckers on the interior. They rode well the two times I rode, handling the curves well, quiet, bright and comfortable seating.
Riding the BNSF racetrack West from Chicago, between Western & Cicero avenues. there are about 15 deck girder street overpass bridges that create a ride issue as far as I am concerned. I have discussed this with RR track personel and have been told that these bridges are not ballasted and therefore, they have difficulties in adjusting the alignments of the ballasted track to the bridge deck track. It results in a notable side & vertical thrust as the cars enter and leave the bridges. Otherwise, the bilevel galley cars ride very well. Current speed on the racetrack is 70 mph for the passenger trains. I think it used to be higher. However, I don’t think BNSF is maintaining the track to the class 5 standard as they one did. I have a memory of riding in a Twin Cities Zepher dome on the racetrack and standing in the dome aisle and not having to hang on to anything as the ride was so smooth.
I have ridden on the California cars and find their ride quite nice. But I suspect part of that is due to the quality of the track. Back in the late fifties, when I worked on the Pennsy, the track between Cincinnati and Logansport was not well maintained and the ride in the coaches was very rough but the ride in the cab of the E-8’s was (partially due to the weight and I suspect the swing hanger Bloomberg trucks) was so smooth, I thought a circus acrobat could have balanced on one hand without any problems.
Well will change title. Nippon now laying off ~100 workers due to continuing "technical " problems
http://www.wifr.com/content/news/100-jobs-cut-from-Nippon-Sharyo-410993125.html
The Capitol Corridor business plan states that probably no bi-levels before 2020 but as well highly likely that NS may go insolvent.
Does anyone know at what point the consortium can declare NS in nonperformance of the contract and terminate the order? To an outsider it seems as if the design is so far from passsing the squeeze test that NS essentially has thrown in the towel and is hoping for a change in the standards.
Looks like N-S might go under. That’s a lot of money down the tube. Time for a proven, modern design.
This seems to be turning into one of those jokes about how many people it takes to screw in light bulb. I guess it is also another stinging indictment on Politicians trying to get items built in their state vs. allowing the market to decide.
[quote user=“RME”]
schlimm
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
There have been reports unconfirmed that have stated that one of the specifications required 20,000 # less weight than current cars. That is being put forward as a reason for the squeeze test failure ? NS could not design a drop level car without a center sill that would pass ?
The inability to get more cars are going to have many repurcusions including not being able to free up Horizons for expanded service, As well Horizons may have to have a level 3 mid life overhaul that was not planned before.
Sure to be speculation that Amtrak will have to go shopping for some Heritage cars such as the bi-level El Capitan cars ? Wreck repairs may have to be increased as well with the high cost repair cars ?
How many ex-El Capitan cars are available?