Nippon Sharyo bilevels for Amtrak corridor trains

jamesinclair wrote:Some pretty gruesome (for rail fans, no blood) pics here

http://www.fresnobee.com/2012/10/01/301 ... th-of.html

Looks like a couple of cars including Coach/Baggage 8204 "Drakes Bay" will be out of service for awhile. I see four springs on the ground.

2015 seems like a long time away.

Tadman wrote:Ridgefielder and Affigat, I couldn't have said it better myself. We're adopting the "Metra System", where only proven equipment is ordered. I would say Metra is probably the best system out there in terms of equipment reliability because they don't screw around with science experiments like Talgos, DMs, HHP... Who cares if something was designed in 1979, we use stuff based on 1955's gallery car and 1968's EMD 645. Seems to work great.

As for 1979, that's about when the EMD 710 was launched... seems to work great for GO, MARC, et al...

I don't know if Talgo would be considered science experiments given their success in Europe and the PNW, but I see your point. The thing is though, if corporations and governments all thought like Metra, we'd be riding un-airconditioned PCC cars to grab our Model-Ts because they worked just fine and nobody screwed around with science experiments. I think screwing around with science experiments(ala skyscrapers, assembly lines, planes...the list goes on) is what made America great many moons ago. But in all reality Tadman, I totally see your point, but without the NJTs and Amtraks out there buying untested technology, how's Chicago going to find out it doesn't work.

I dont doubt the superliners solidity or durability .
The weight is a huge problem . I doubt the track dept are going to allow these things to run at 125mph . on paper maybe , but they will beat the crap out of the track in real life at 125 mph .

They won't if track is alligned properly, but yes at track defects they hit harder. Its job of track dept to make sure there is no defects however..

David Benton wrote:I dont doubt the superliners solidity or durability .
The weight is a huge problem . I doubt the track dept are going to allow these things to run at 125mph . on paper maybe , but they will beat the crap out of the track in reak l life at 125 mph .

Why would they suddenly not allow them to run at 125mph given the same basic design does so in California?

pretty sure top speed in Califionia is 90 mph .
no defect track , that will be good .

David Benton wrote:pretty sure top speed in Califionia is 90 mph .
no defect track , that will be good .

If I recall correctly, some of the HSR money was to get the LA-SD running at 110mph in some parts....anyone care to confirm or deny this? It was something stated back in 2010 when the money was being handed out.

David Benton wrote:pretty sure top speed in Califionia is 90 mph .
no defect track , that will be good .

Just going on what others have said and Wikepedia on Superliner states.

I'm just saying that it will be a tough job keeping track in good condition with these heavy cars hitting any defect at 125 mph . certainly maintenance would have to be above what is carried out on the nec now , let alone outside the corridor .
And then there's the h.p needed to accelerate the slap face front end to 125 mph , as well as the weight .
at best , these are not the ideal design for 125 mph service . at worst they will be a maintenance and running cost nitemare .

Unlike most other ROW,Calif rarely gets a deep freeze,there might be earthquakes,but no frost heaves,
so the roadbed is very stable.
BNSF is very capable at maintaining 90 mph track.
The orignal ATSF Bi-Levels that were used on the El-Cap and the SFO Chief ran at 90-100 mph.

If the roadbed can handle massive unit coal trains 2x/day, I'm not too worried about it holding up bi-level passenger trains at 110mph. And if aerodynamics were a problem, they'd probably design an airfoil for the aft end of a captive fleet of locomotives (already in existence due to ITCS pool). Much ado about nothing.

I'll admit I haven't seen the weight specifications of the new order, but here's the weight specifications of existing rail cars....
MPXpress (MP36PH) Locomotive = 289,000 pounds (UTA*)
P42DC locomotive = 268,240 pounds (Wiki)
California Superliner = 148,000 pounds (Wiki)
Amfleet = 116,000 pounds (Wiki)
Bombardier BiLevel = 118,000 pounds (UTA*)
Comet 1 = 74,000 pounds (UTA*)
UTA source http://www.rideuta.com/mc/?page=FrontRu ... erVehicles
In either case, the diesel locomotive pulling or pushing far outweigh the cars themselves.

The standard bi-level specification, which governs this order specifies that Coaches have to be at most 150,000lb and Coach-Baggages 154,000lb, with the Coach-Lounges falling somewhere between those two.

Tgv duplex = 38 tonne , or 83,600 lbs .Actually could be less , i divided the trainset weight by 10 .
You might also want to check out the relationship between weight and speed . double the speed you raise the force by 8 times i think . so a 125 mph passenger car may do more damage than a 60 mph coal car .

Why do you keep comparing European toy trains with US super trains, the Europeans do not run 150 ton freight cars and 200 ton locomotives on same track as Amtrak type equipment.
Stop comparing apples to oranges.