• Acela Replacement and Disposition Discussion

  • Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.
Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman

  • 1572 posts
  • 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 105
  by ThirdRail7
 
trainmaster611 wrote:
ThirdRail7 wrote:
Arlington wrote: 3) The Chase Maryland crash (fall 1987) is now a distant memory (it was fresh even in Clinton's day)
Even if we're to assume Gunpow is distant memory to the general public and politicians, Chatsworth isn't. The southern portion of the NEC is INFESTED with freight traffic, particularly after 9pm.

It may be an issue the FRA will not overlook.
And we all saw how spectacularly FRA standard equipment failed there. It even arguably compounded the problem. What would have prevented that accident is a more advanced signalling system which is precisely what the NEC has.

That may be true. However, the advance signaling of the NEC didn't prevent Chase, Hook, Portal, Gate, River, Ham, Chase 2 nor did the signals and ITCS prevent Niles.

So, they may take that into consideration.
  by Matt Johnson
 
Arlington wrote:Are there any manufacturers who *don't* make a tilting 220mph train "off the shelf"?
I'm not sure there are any that do, currently. (Edit: I guess Talgo does, but won't be viable for the NEC.) But, as an example, Siemens has the 220 mph ICE3/Velaro design, and also the 143 mph (230 km/hr) ICE T design. Could the tilt feature of the latter be easily merged into the former while maintaining the 220 mph capability? I don't know.
  by Arlington
 
Matt Johnson wrote:
Arlington wrote:Are there any manufacturers who *don't* make a tilting 220mph train "off the shelf"?
I'm not sure there are any that do, currently. (Edit: I guess Talgo does, but won't be viable for the NEC.) But, as an example, Siemens has the 220 mph ICE3/Velaro design, and also the 143 mph (230 km/hr) ICE T design. Could the tilt feature of the latter be easily merged into the former while maintaining the 220 mph capability? I don't know.
So a package deal, not a common fleet. Reading further, it looks like the potential common purchase is more like you describe: off-the shelf, some tilt, some go 220 (not both on same train), a mix of off-the shelf trains as a package from 1 maker.
  by Hawaiitiki
 
What makes everybody here so confident that Amtrak will go for a Deutsche Bahn derivative as opposed to a TGV derivative as they did with the Acela? Both TGVs and ICE trains share alot of territory in Switzerland and the Benelux countries so they both seem to have similiar restrictions. I've ridden ICE trains and enjoyed the ride very much, but America seems to be on a Bilevel equipment binge, and only TGV offers something like that "off-the-shelf".
  by korax
 
They specifically mentioned an EMU configuration. The current generation of TGVs are locomotive based (although the next will be EMU based), so this would rule out the current TGV models.
  by SEPTAR2Newark
 
korax wrote:They specifically mentioned an EMU configuration. The current generation of TGVs are locomotive based (although the next will be EMU based), so this would rule out the current TGV models.
The EMU version has been around for a few years now, branded as the AGV.
  by Fan Railer
 
SEPTAR2Newark wrote:
korax wrote:They specifically mentioned an EMU configuration. The current generation of TGVs are locomotive based (although the next will be EMU based), so this would rule out the current TGV models.
The EMU version has been around for a few years now, branded as the AGV.
Unless Alstom can sell their new creation with the proper crash equipment that meets the new FRA regs that are being drafted, that skimpy train will never run on the NEC in the near future. Besides, if you didn't know, the AGV does not, as I recall, support high level platform boarding.
  by trainmaster611
 
Fan Railer wrote: Unless Alstom can sell their new creation with the proper crash equipment that meets the new FRA regs that are being drafted, that skimpy train will never run on the NEC in the near future.
I wouldn't count out any trainset from not meeting regulations at this point. It looks like Amtrak is going to, if not outright be in the driver's seat regarding the new regulations, have a very hand in influencing it. Amtrak would largely be free to choose which trainset it wants and have the regulations conform to that.
ThirdRail7 wrote:
trainmaster611 wrote:
ThirdRail7 wrote:
Arlington wrote: 3) The Chase Maryland crash (fall 1987) is now a distant memory (it was fresh even in Clinton's day)
Even if we're to assume Gunpow is distant memory to the general public and politicians, Chatsworth isn't. The southern portion of the NEC is INFESTED with freight traffic, particularly after 9pm.

It may be an issue the FRA will not overlook.
And we all saw how spectacularly FRA standard equipment failed there. It even arguably compounded the problem. What would have prevented that accident is a more advanced signalling system which is precisely what the NEC has.

That may be true. However, the advance signaling of the NEC didn't prevent Chase, Hook, Portal, Gate, River, Ham, Chase 2 nor did the signals and ITCS prevent Niles.

So, they may take that into consideration.
We already know the FRA regulation equipment is useless so no amount of accidents would justify it. In any event, even the best signaling systems in America are pitiful by international standards. We should really be looking at European and Japanese signaling systems and safety standards to see how they avoid accidents.
Hawaiitiki wrote:What makes everybody here so confident that Amtrak will go for a Deutsche Bahn derivative as opposed to a TGV derivative as they did with the Acela? Both TGVs and ICE trains share alot of territory in Switzerland and the Benelux countries so they both seem to have similiar restrictions. I've ridden ICE trains and enjoyed the ride very much, but America seems to be on a Bilevel equipment binge, and only TGV offers something like that "off-the-shelf".
Others have already pointed out that they want an EMU. While that brings into play the AGV, that also eliminates any Talgo trainset. So the high speed EMU's that meet the speed requirement would be the Siemens Velaro, Alstom AGV, Bombardier Zefiro, and various Chinese shinkansen-derived trains. The Velaro has quickly captured a lot of the market for selling high speed trains overseas making it something of a world standard, but Shinkansen derivatives have also made some headway in Asia. The AGV has a loading height of 45" while the NEC platform height is 48". I don't know if it's possible to modify it to match the NEC but that might hurt its chances of being selected.

However, I do wonder what they intend to do about the curves in Connecticut, where you need a tilting train to go through at any significant speed.
  by Adirondacker
 
trainmaster611 wrote:In any event, even the best signaling systems in America are pitiful by international standards. We should really be looking at European and Japanese signaling systems and safety standards to see how they avoid accidents.
What's the functional difference between ACSES and those other systems? What makes it so pitiful?
  by MattW
 
Could the Shinkansens be modified to American loading gauge without too much fuss? I thought they were a decent bit wider than current U.S. trains.
  by David Benton
 
Rather than changing the regulations , i would imagine it would be easier to have a specific trainset excepted for specific use on the NEC . Much the same as the Talgos were "grandfathered" , for use in the northwest .
  by Matt Johnson
 
David Benton wrote:Rather than changing the regulations , i would imagine it would be easier to have a specific trainset excepted for specific use on the NEC . Much the same as the Talgos were "grandfathered" , for use in the northwest .
Wouldn't be the first time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mzla5uG9208
  by kaitoku
 
David Benton wrote:Rather than changing the regulations , i would imagine it would be easier to have a specific trainset excepted for specific use on the NEC . Much the same as the Talgos were "grandfathered" , for use in the northwest .
Agree. This announcement is more like political posturing and makes for good sound bites to throw to the media and general public as in "pooling to save costs"- though in the long run, if previous experience is to be considered, little money will be saved, and the end product, if adhering strictly to the specs, will be less than optimal. I expect builders will complain and the authorities will cave in to reality (hopefully), and this joint purchase nonsense will be thrown in the circular bin.
  by AgentSkelly
 
It wouldn't surprise me if Siemens has a side project of a complete FRA compliant DB3 trainset....
  by amtrakowitz
 
Adirondacker wrote:
goodnightjohnwayne wrote:Right now, it really doesn't matter if Amtrak procures 220 MPH trainsets, because there's no prospective 220 MPH right-of-way until half-way through the life cycle of the projected Acela replacement trainsets
It will matter if halfway through their lifecycle the track is capable of 220 or even 180 and all they can do is 160.
Eh? No such track (Class 9) will materialize on the east coast. Don't know why Amtrak is even still talking about it. The federal government's promises here are just as hollow as back when they promised 160-mph service on the Budd Metroliner 44 years ago.
  • 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 105