In the late 1970’s did Amtrak ever consider evaluating the BR HST125 instead buying into the Horizon cars for daylight services operating out of Chicago. To me as an Australian where we have a HST deriviative in the form of the XPT they would have been quite a good purchase as higher utilisation would have been achived as well as higher av speeds would have been achived recovering from slacks etc. Or was a case of Amtrak sticking with what it knows . I know that the French Turbo trains in the US were a total disaster. But you think that if the HST was suitably modified like the Australian XPT it would have worked quite well.
Most lines lack the signalling system to allow higher speeds than 79mph. So any thought towards an HST is moot. Plus of course there is the pesky FRA buffer strength requirement.
I find it strange that in the US they have that rule when the HST’s breaking performance was designed to operate in the same spacings as for conventional loco hauled stock. But with that being said in the UK some form train protection is almost universal.
I realise that the buffer strength requirements would be different but you would want redesign your passenger cars to cope with things like low level platforms and the use of stainless steel.
As usual, the rolling stock gets all the attention when the real work for high speed passenger service lies in the infrastructure. Lots of money is going to have to be invested in track and signalling upgrades, but this isn’t very glamorous so it gets overlooked. Anybody who remembers the Potomac Turbo knows what happens when high-speed rolling stock meets a relatively low-speed line.
Kinda hard to call the French Turbos a total disaster. The “Americanized” version NY bought actually did pretty well for many years. I rode them fairly often between GCT and Albany-Rensselaer in the late 70s and early 80s. They were fast and smooth - and seemed to be pretty reliable.
Over the last twenty years there have been several attempts to show and operate in the US, HST equipment over rails here in the US, THe United Aircraft Turbos, Rohr Turbos of similar design, as well as the Swedish HST which was campaigned about the country with AMTRAK diesels supplying motive power, The Italian Talgos, that are working in the Northwestern US, and I am sure there are some I cannot think of.
Not to mention, the early efforts at lightweight passenger equipment, Train X, The Daniel Webster, The GM Aerotrain, and the Zephyrs of the CB&Q which did a very credible job many years ago. As well as ‘streamliners of the late 1940’s/1950’s, IC’s Land o’Corn [I think], The Union Pacific M-10000 and its other stablemates, GM&O’s Rebels, and The Missouri and Northwest Arkansas’ streamliners that ran from Pittsburg,Ks. to Neosho, Mo. to Helena, Ark[:D]
First, a few corrections are in order. The United Aircraft turbo’s and the Rohr turbos were not the same. The Swedish train which was demonstrated here in the US during 1993 was the X 2000 which did not leave the NEC. The high speed train that was demonstrated cross-country was the German Intercity Express (ICE) train. The Talgos in use in Washington are from Spain.
Nevertheless your point is well taken that over the years lightweight high speed trains have been demonstrated; some were successful others weren’t, but the early train weren’t high-speed in today’s terms. The most successful trains were the Zephyrs which eventually morphed into diesel hauled streamliners with conventional diesel locomotives. The problem with some of the early trains was they were articulated so if one car needed to go into the shop the entire train had to be pulled out of service.
I have ridden on the British HST 125’s, and they seemed to be comfortable, and possibly capable of an even higher speeds. On a trip from Edinburgh to London 16 years ago on an HST 125 I clocked it at 135 mph somewhere between York and London; however the train was 10 minutes late late leaving York and it arrived in London a few minutes early. However, it would make litle sense to demonstrate them here in the U.S. because there are few, if any, places where they could be used at their potential.
Stainless steel doesn’t realy matter but buffer stength apparently does as of couse the width of the train. British trains are narrow and US trains are relatively wide with high platforms (in largely populated areas), there would be a large gap.
But the great advantage of the BR HST’s has been that they can accelerate (and brake!) more quickly than a conventional train. So even on lines where the line speed remains at 100mph (or less) they have still been able to offer worthwhile cuts in journey. (The Midland Main Line from London St. Pancras to Sheffield being a prime example of this; until recently much of it was still signalled with semaphore signals). The Aussie XPT’s were, if I remember correctly, originally geared for 100mph, but even that speed was an improvement on what had gone before.
The whole appearance and ambience of the HST’s is so good they just attract extra passengers on that count alone. Even to-day, when they’re now 30 years old people still think of them as modern.
Getting back to the original question, I think BR did make a half hearted attempt to sell the HST to Amtrak but part the trouble was they were only meant to be a stop gap solution until all the main lines in Britain had been electrified and a fleet of 150 mph tilting trains (the Advanced Passenger Train) running everywhere.
The X2000 went for a tour as well of the NEC but not as extensive as the German ICE.
The X2000 train was pulled by two white painted Rohr Turbo powercars when off Catenary.
http://trainweb.org/kin/x2000@kin.jpg
The German ICE train was pulled around by to EMD/Siemens F69PHAC locomotives bought back by consortiom
In France, the Turbotrains ran for 30+ years. IMHO, it was a succes, because they served lines where electrification was (and in part is) too expensive to be justified by patronage. They were rated at 180 kmph (roughly 110 mph). Top speed of 230 kmph was only in test-runs. Unfortunately, Amtrak did not use them for really fast intercity-trains. It should have been possible to make for example Chicago-St. Louis in less than four hours with appropriate improvements in ROW. This would be hard to beat for airlines, if you count the time from airport to downtown and back.
Another advantage of the HST in its Aussie incarnation is that because of its lighter axle loading than a conventional loco they can take curves faster depeding upon the curve up 20kph faster Another thing is because US track is built to heaver standards than track in both UK and Australia 160kph + running would be possible in more places depending upon signal spacing/overlaps etc. Athough that being said that when the HST was being redesigned for Australian use a few modifications were done to both the power and passenger bogies ( Even though the passenger cars are stainless steel they run on a modified version of the BR BT22 bogie) in terms of springing rates and wheel profiles. As to the passenger cars themselfs just by pictures in the case of the UK and US cars IMHO both the BR MK3 and the XPT cars seem to be more space efficent and more brighter and airier due to their large panaramic windows as well as being very well lit while the Amfleets/Horizon seem to be far more clostered due to their rather small window size. Was Budd’s decision to use a smaller than average window size when designing the metroliner cars used to create the impression to the impression that the passengers were in an aircraft therefore creating the impression of speed and moderninity.
There is a interior pic of a mk 3 car at
My take on this is that in the UK there are no “unguarded” rail crossings. Here, there are a very high percentage of highway/rail crossings that are unprotected or “underprotected”. The last grade crossings on the northeast corridor weren’t eliminated until about 1995 or there abouts. So, considering how many crossings there are with low traffic density, both on the roads and railroads it becomes difficult for financially strained states to justify the cost of putting in bridges or underpasses. Then, too will the expense be justified if the train(s) turns out to be a bust, or gets caught up in political infighting (state and/or federal) and gets dumped in the process?