Higher speed rail- 125mph will put GE at disadvantage

[Tommy Meehan]

The danger is if the locomotive overrides the vehicle and derails or is deflected off the track upon impact. The force inside the locomotive cab and in the passenger cars increase with the mph. At 110 mph I would think you're certain to have some on-train fatalities in the event of a derailment.

[ExCon90]

Not only that, it might not be an automobile on the crossing -- it might be a gravel truck, or a lowboy with a transformer or something stranded high and dry on the crossing because it's too low to get across. Of course, truckers are supposed to get permits and observe established procedures for things like that, but ...

[mtuandrew]

Not only that, it might not be an automobile on the crossing -- it might be a gravel truck, or a lowboy with a transformer or something stranded high and dry on the crossing because it's too low to get across. Of course, truckers are supposed to get permits and observe established procedures for things like that, but ...

...even with permits, there are individuals (well-meaning or otherwise) that think they'll save some time and/or money by skirting the rules.

Anyway, we're getting off the topic of GE being at a disadvantage where 125 mph rail is concerned.

[Tommy Meehan]

...Anyway, we're getting off the topic of GE being at a disadvantage where 125 mph rail is concerned.

Strictly speaking that's true, except it was GE that called into question the wisdom of building track for 125 mph vs. 110 mph and that basic premise was being questioned here:

“In a time of great fiscal constraints, why should taxpayers pay more money to save a fraction of travel time that can’t even be achieved unless states spend billions of dollars more to undo work they have already done?” Rob McKeel, general manager of global locomotive operations for GE, said in an e- mail.

To me this is a very misguided approach for General Electric to take. I thought when I first read it that it seemed a bit strange. I don't think it's General Electric's place to be advising the American public on how high speed rail should work.

First, I really don't think GE is too concerned with U.S. taxpayers. They want to sell locomotives that are rated for 110 mph. Probably when GE has a 125 mph locomotive ready all their reservations about 125 mph go right out the window!

Second, the corridor the GE general manager is talking about is Chicago-St. Louis. Why would they have to "spend billions to undo work they have already done" in order to increase the speed to 125 mph? I realize they would have to increase the elevation on curves but I would guess a good track crew could do most of that fairly quickly.

What they would have to do to increase speed from 110 to 125 is build "impenetrable barriers" at grade crossings. But that would benefit all the trains on the route, not just the high speed Amtrak trains.


.

[electricron]

...Anyway, we're getting off the topic of GE being at a disadvantage where 125 mph rail is concerned.

Strictly speaking that's true, except it was GE that called into question the wisdom of building track for 125 mph vs. 110 mph and that basic premise was being questioned here:

“In a time of great fiscal constraints, why should taxpayers pay more money to save a fraction of travel time that can’t even be achieved unless states spend billions of dollars more to undo work they have already done?” Rob McKeel, general manager of global locomotive operations for GE, said in an e- mail.

To me this is a very misguided approach for General Electric to take. I thought when I first read it that it seemed a bit strange. I don't think it's General Electric's place to be advising the American public on how high speed rail should work.

First, I really don't think GE is too concerned with U.S. taxpayers. They want to sell locomotives that are rated for 110 mph. Probably when GE has a 125 mph locomotive ready all their reservations about 125 mph go right out the window!

Second, the corridor the GE general manager is talking about is Chicago-St. Louis. Why would they have to "spend billions to undo work they have already done" in order to increase the speed to 125 mph? I realize they would have to increase the elevation on curves but I would guess a good track crew could do most of that fairly quickly.

What they would have to do to increase speed from 110 to 125 is build "impenetrable barriers" at grade crossings. But that would benefit all the trains on the route, not just the high speed Amtrak trains..

The FRA hasn't approved any "impenetrable barriers" to date anywhere in the USA. So far, FRA has only approved speeds on tracks greater than 110 mph that have grade separations with no at grade crossings. Grade separations usually cost around $10 Million each. On a 300 mile or so railroad corridor in the midwest with roads every mile, we're discussing needing 300 crossings, and spending $3 Billion more.

[Tommy Meehan]

The FRA hasn't approved any "impenetrable barriers" to date anywhere in the USA...

That doesn't mean the FRA isn't going to approve them at some point. Why not get started? And the smart way to do it in my opinion would be to upgrade segments of the Chicago-St. Louis corridor to 125 mph not the whole thing all at once.

.

[electricron]

The FRA hasn't approved any "impenetrable barriers" to date anywhere in the USA...

That doesn't mean the FRA isn't going to approve them at some point. Why not get started? And the smart way to do it in my opinion would be to upgrade segments of the Chicago-St. Louis corridor to 125 mph not the whole thing all at once.

But you're in the middle of farms too, which have private crossings marked with just cross bucks. Even some industries within Chicago and St. Louis metros have private crossings marked with just cross bucks. You're not going to be able to eliminate all of them to be able to go 125 mph far.

[Tommy Meehan]

But you're in the middle of farms too...

You would think on a 300-mile corridor there would be a couple places where it would be feasible to upgrade to 125-mph operation. But now we're getting off-topic again.

So to veer back on-topic, I think for GE to criticize, to start talking about wasting taxpayer money, merely because they don't have a 125-mph locomotive to sell, I think that's pretty cheesy.

Wish they were as concerned with some of the badly polluted sites they've left behind.

.

[CorenDirebrew]

That is not gonna put the Acela's at a disadvantage

[electricron]

That is not gonna put the Acela's at a disadvantage

Acela uses electric locomotives, this discussion is about diesel locomotives. So what?

[GWoodle]

[How far in advance? I don't know, I'm sure it's stated somewhere on the FRA site but I didn't see it. But the signal would have to be located well in advance of the crossing to allow the engineer to be able to bring a train moving 110+ mph to a safe stop if the crossing barrier DID NOT deploy or the crossing was NOT clear.

I guess that's why the barrier has to be impenetrable. If the gates activate when the train is barely in sight you just KNOW a lot of drivers will think, "Screw this, I can make it." If there's anyway possible for cars to go around the gates there's people that will do it. And that's something you DON'T want to see when you're moving 125 mph

.[/quote]

Where installed, the crossing allows for a 50 second crossing warning in place of the usual 20-30 second one. At 60mph (mile a minute) this needs to be nearly a mile up the track. At 120 this goes up to 2 miles to allow for in cab warning to the train to slow/stop if gates are not working or something is fouled.

At the 1-2 mile mark, the barrier would have to be impenatratable for those antsy drivers that can't wait a minute at the crossing. For a slow moving tractor, the farmer would need to call to see if it was safe to even open the gate. I don't know if some systems could add a yellow flashing warning to give a driver 10 seconds to be off & clear of the track? somewhere there is a proposal to do a "school zone" style flashing warning sign. I suppose at some locations the "pedestrian countdown flashing"type sign could also be used to keep antsy drivers at bay. Those signs help me to know when traffic is too slow to clear a normal highway/street light.

[AgentSkelly]

How about a chicane at every crossing with a crossing gate?

[amtrakowitz]

The FRA hasn't approved any "impenetrable barriers" to date anywhere in the USA...

That doesn't mean the FRA isn't going to approve them at some point. Why not get started? And the smart way to do it in my opinion would be to upgrade segments of the Chicago-St. Louis corridor to 125 mph not the whole thing all at once.

Or why not abandon the notion altogether and loosen regulations? Kinda like the ephemeral difference between Class 6 and Class 7 track, the latter of which the FRA requires for 125-mph operation?

The notion of "impenetrable" barriers will result in litigation in its own right. If such a barrier strikes a vehicle that runs the crossing, or closes off the crossing so that a vehicle gets trapped on it due to "impenetrability", watch lawyers and legislators aplenty reassess things—especially in monetary terms. Won't make much difference being struck by a train traveling at 110 mph versus 125 mph, just like there is hardly a difference when a train traveling at 79 mph hits a road vehicle that is trespassing on the "easement".

[mtuandrew]

A competitor to GE, from old nemesis EMD (though apparently with Caterpillar-yellow power): http://www.progressrail.com/docs/passenger-2.pdf

(first posted by Matt Johnson in the Empire Service thread in Amtrak)

[hammersklavier]

A competitor to GE, from old nemesis EMD (though apparently with Caterpillar-yellow power): http://www.progressrail.com/docs/passenger-2.pdf

(first posted by Matt Johnson in the Empire Service thread in Amtrak)

For something that looks like it's an updating of the (British) InterCity 125, that's not bad.

Also, it definitely puts the screws to GE to design something competitive.