SC-44 Siemens Charger Locomotives

Dutch makes a good point. The scarier side of that is what happens when we do try to buy domestic and force a builder to make something they're not good at. We tried to force GE to build domestic passenger electrics and got the E60. We tried to force Budd to build HST's and got the Metroliner EMU. NY State tried to force EMD to build a monocoque commuter engine and got the DE/DM. Imagine how much easier things would've been if those three little disasters had been skipped. Imagine how nice the corridors would be today if the Midwest/California bilevel debacle wasn't happening.

Dutch is right. There are more EMD freight units in each of many foreign countries than there are imported passenger trains here. Look at all the GT22s in Argentina or the JT42's in Great Britain. It is a cash cow for American companies, management, and labor.

All true but also worth remembering that part of the problem at the time may have been that foreign builders were not willing to build to US specifications or to assemble in the U.S. (Not sure how the AEM-7 story plays out on that timeline ...).

While some might say we should change the specifications I completely disagree there. The U.S. does something that most other countries, especially in Europe, avoid and that is operating mixed freight and passenger traffic. In particular U.S. specifications for railroad freight cars allow for significantly heavier loads and longer trains. Additionally these operations take place on railroads that until recently operated without the benefit of Positive Train Control or the more primitive Automatic Train Stop (or other earlier forms train/signal stop interventions).

The current model is to an extent the best of both worlds. Force foreign manufacturers to build to American specifications with final assembly in the U.S. Not bad at all considering the challenges of globalization. I doubt very much that most other countries would be granted these types of concessions.

gokeefe wrote: While some might say we should change the specifications I completely disagree there. The U.S. does something that most other countries, especially in Europe, avoid and that is operating mixed freight and passenger traffic.

This is simply not true, in Europe (execpt most high speed lines) are freight and passengers mixed over all the lines.

And all of it on signal indication, with frequent passenger trains overtaking freight trains at stations on precise schedules, which are achieved because the physical plant requires trains to be where and when they're supposed to be to avoid widespread disruption. (Of course siding length limits freight-train length, which makes schedule adherence easier.)

SRich wrote:

gokeefe wrote: While some might say we should change the specifications I completely disagree there. The U.S. does something that most other countries, especially in Europe, avoid and that is operating mixed freight and passenger traffic.

This is simply not true, in Europe (execpt most high speed lines) are freight and passengers mixed over all the lines.

Most high and higher speed rail lines in Europe are double track at least. Most tracks in the USA are single track lines where trains meet each other instead of just passing one another. The main reasos why are the distances involved, and who owns the railroad.
For example, National Rail of England owns 9,817 miles of railroads, in the USA; the UP has 32,100 miles of railroad, BNSF has 32,500 miles of railroad, CSX has 21,000 miles of railroad, NS has 21,500 miles of railroad, KCS has 6,000 miles of railroad, CN* has 20,400 miles of railroad, and CP* has 12,500 miles of railroad. Note (*) includes both USA and Canada.
Total miles of railroad for Class 1s in the USA and Canada is 146,000 miles. That doesn’t include miles of tracks owned by Class 2s and Class 3s railroad companies.

Well, comparing most of North America with just National Rail is slightly unfair. So here’s the rest of Western Europe.
Germany (DB) 25,600 miles
France (SCNF) 18,500 miles
Italy (Ferrovie dello Stato) 10,300 miles
Spain (Adif) 9,900 miles
Sweden (SJ) 7,900 miles
Finland (VR Group) 5,400 miles
Switzerland (SFR) 3,300 miles
Austria (ÖBB) 3,000 miles
Norway (NSR) 2,500 miles
Belgium (NMBS/SNCB) 2,200 miles
Netherlands (NS) 2,000 miles
Ireland (IR) 1,700 miles
Portugal (CP) 1, 700 miles
Denmark (DSB) 1,600 miles
These include every mile of rail route in Western Europe, this totaled 95,000 miles.
Almost 100% of the railroad routes in Western Europe is owned by the government, over 99% of the railroad routes in the USA is owned by private enterprise. Amtrak owns only 730 miles of railroad.

Tadman wrote:Budd to build HST's and got the Metroliner EMU

Which foreign firm would you have preferred to have built a high speed train in 1965? The first generation Shinkansen was introduced the previous year in 1964 with a top speed of 130 mph. Budd was the first to attempt building a genuine modern definition of a high speed train. A 160 MPH EMU HST was decades ahead of its time and didn't help that it was designed under significant time pressure.

Tadman wrote:Dutch makes a good point. The scarier side of that is what happens when we do try to buy domestic and force a builder to make something they're not good at. We tried to force GE to build domestic passenger electrics and got the E60. We tried to force Budd to build HST's and got the Metroliner EMU. NY State tried to force EMD to build a monocoque commuter engine and got the DE/DM. Imagine how much easier things would've been if those three little disasters had been skipped. Imagine how nice the corridors would be today if the Midwest/California bilevel debacle wasn't happening.

Dutch is right. There are more EMD freight units in each of many foreign countries than there are imported passenger trains here. Look at all the GT22s in Argentina or the JT42's in Great Britain. It is a cash cow for American companies, management, and labor.

And then you have.....The PL42AC..... A Vossloh design ported to america and bastardized by NJ Transit. And its still a problem to this day. That truck design pretty much cant do anything good over 60-70mph without feeling like you are going to get thrown off the rails. They basically will not run them on the NEC and they have been since banned from the AC line which is mostly 80mph running.

Even with the success of the AEM-7, they still did not ride good. The truck designs of european track standards do not fit US track design and neglect. Even these brandy new ACS-64s ride like total garbage now after just a short period of time in service.

Even Genesis has M.A.K trucks, but key to European trucks is proper maintenance and no short cuts .
a lot of Genesis trucks cracked cause instead of replacing all springs, only a defective one was replaced. I can guarantee that same short cuts still hurt maintenance on other locomotives.
Shops maintain stuff by word of mouth, not shop manuals , hell no, those are brand new in a file cabinet somewhere..

This is very true. They actually had problems like this with the old heritage trucks on the diners. Amtrak has a thing where they only replace the bad springs. Well they learned, if a spring goes bad they all have to go because the spring rates wont match up between worn and new springs.

I once read in the Budd service manual for amfleets if you jack the car up on one side only in a shop you have to disconnect the air suspension linkage on the truck that stays on the ground, or it will bend and be damaged. Well sunnyside wheel house was disconnecting the linkage, but not on the ground end. Now you know why all the amfleet 2s sit funny on their air springs.

one of misconceptions on railroad is that air suspension is set by pressure, it is not , that linkage sets height.
just like a ship in a lock does not raise by water pressure , neither does a rail car, its set by volume of air in air bags.
the pressure remains same from moment car starts lifting off stops till it gets to max height stops.

ApproachMedium wrote:
I once read in the Budd service manual for amfleets if you jack the car up on one side only in a shop you have to disconnect the air suspension linkage on the truck that stays on the ground, or it will bend and be damaged. Well sunnyside wheel house was disconnecting the linkage, but not on the ground end. Now you know why all the amfleet 2s sit funny on their air springs.

Wow. I thought that would be common knowledge (and common sense). When jacking up air ride cars and trucks (Lincolns, Cadillacs, etc.), no matter the whole vehicle, one end or one wheel.....you ALWAYS disable the leveling system. Jacking up one side changes the geometry on the other, and the system will try to compensate until it damages itself.

Well it is "disabled" because the car would not have any air on it when its in the shop. The reason you dont want to jack up a car with air ride with the system on is because of the system running too much and overheating the compressor or the bags pulling out with pressure inside. When my car with aftermarket air suspension is put on a lift we set the arms under the car with it on the ground and then air the car out so it rests on the arms, then lift it. This keeps the bags from getting damaged if its up for too long.

electricron wrote: ...

Your point....?

Who owns the railroad corridors determines the speeds most trans run over the railroad.
America’s railroads are mostly owned by freight railroads, and they are happy to build and maintain the tracks so their trains can run at around 50 mph. State and Federal governments end up paying them to maintain the tracks At higher standards so passenger trains can go faster. Golly, Vermont is investing hundreds of millions just to get a few passenger trains speed up to 60 mph. Railroad companies pay property taxes on their corridor, so they tend to just improve them as little as possible to meet their needs. Which means far more single track lines. Private enterprise at its finest, moving goods economically powering the overall economy with limited government financing.
In Europe, the opposite occurs. Railroads are owned by the government and maintains the tracks at a higher standard for passenger train speeds. While freight trains can go faster, there less of them moving less goods.

I agree with that, but the point that i want to make is that also in Europe freigth and passengers are traveling on the same railroad...(even on some high speed lines)....