As built, the loco frames were intended for 150mph, but initial gearing limited it to 103 mph. Hence, Genesis style, AMD-103 spec, P40/42DC designation.
High Speed Rail In the Midwest
- Thread starter mp202
- Start date
As built, the loco frames were intended for 150mph, but initial gearing limited it to 103 mph. Hence, Genesis style, AMD-103 spec, P40/42DC designation.
Actually. The P42s & P32ACDMs are limited to 110mph, the the few P40s that re-entered service are the ones limited to 100 (103).
Source: Amtrak 2012 Fleet Strategy Plan
peter
I just read an article from Trains.com.. That All Aboard Florida Is going to have a passenger Train that is to run, between Miami to Orlando..Part of it will run at 79 Mph(This Part Wiil share with FEC)..The new part will run at 110 Mph..Also this is true on the St.Louis to Chicago Line..I also understand Amtrak is going to Test a few areas of The NEC at 165 Mph..
Andres_Nunez
Buffalonian
Now Now, let's not be hasted, most of our high speed rail was introduced during The Great Depression. Thanks to the Roosevelt Administration high speed rail had a fighting chance. Catenary was installed and track replaced to allow HSR. Now with a federal act approved by congress High Speed Electrical Rail is plausable in the Midwest. You just have to convince the people and the NIMBY's of the benefits. A way Midwestern HSR would have a chance is by placing the line along a highway. It can't use freight lines in my opinion, because people would start complaining about reliablility. For it to work it must have the following things:
1. Built Along An Interstate That Travels Through Multiple Cities On It's Own Right Of Way.
2. Electrical Power, Diesel can turn off alot of people. It must be electrical, either with 3rd rail or catenray to succeed. One of the benefits of catenary is that it does not need alot of maintenance.
3. Connections, it must connect with various systems or stop at points of major interest or else it will have low ridership.
Now HSR has a fighting chance if you include those things. And i put emphasis on #3, tie it into the existing high speed network. Send it south east to Washington for long distance commuters. I mean Look at MBTA they started in the greater boston area and now there south of providence with plans to move south some more. METRA is planning on extending it's lines. If you create a stable grid of corridors, like upgrading METRA, CSS&SB you have a starting point for HSR. But without those fundamentals HSR does not have a chance.
Problems:
A) The hosers who call themselves motorists get into so many accidents in the median, they would effectively make every other train late or cancelled, not to mention road construction, having to route traffic from one side of the road to the other.
B) Costruction folks, police might not know enough to not touch the powered catenary or 3rd rail when working.
C) Some highways have no median to speak of.
D) Maintaining the dedicated right-of-way would be difficult with the cross-overs that say "authorized vehicles only", horn blowing would be eternal.
E) Too many too-small bridges to duck under.
F) The grading of the highway might be several times that needed by railroads, say up to 7%.
Notes: I agree with point #3. Absolutely.
The Illinois project will benefit UP as well, improving their own times so it is a win-win for them unless an accident occurs.
And we don't have a HSR "network". Passenger, yes, but not HS.
And I would ask a pro before saying that catenary is "maintinence free".
I recall reading a 1970ish article in Trains Mag that said to electrify existing track, 24 4000 ton trains a day would be needed to break even in 20 years. Numbers have changed since then, but I would verify before throwing cable all over the place.
Andres_Nunez
Buffalonian
now i think people know which rail is elelctrified. I mean it's obviously going to be the outer most rail away from the platforms. But now that i think of it 3rd rail can not be an option because of freight traffic. I think Catenary is the best but i don't see the downside to catenary, it's proved it's best for over 60 years. And i doubt some idiot will try to jump 20 feet into the air to touch the wire. I mean look at the CSS&SB runs through small towns and no person has touched the wires. As far as i know
jacksonbarno
Alco Spoken Here
There has to be a reason why people want to take the train. In a day and age where money is a close second to time in the ruling factors in transportation, if people pay the same price as an airline ticket to go to a city, say Chicago from NY, when taking the plane takes a fraction of the time as a train, lets say the Lake Shore Limited , most people are going to take a plane because of three important factors: time (taking a plane takes a fraction of the time taken by the LSL), the fact that planes leave for a city about every three hours on nonstop trips when you only have one set time to go on one train (if you miss the train, then you're done for), and finally, airplanes usually aren't delayed by anything, while the LSL, and other Amtrak trains can be sidetracked by freights and the like. If Amtrak wants to succeed with its HSR plan, it has to adress these three factors.
Planes get delayed all the time, it's just the folks who complain about Trains being late will happily put up with an Airline being delayed or even cancelled.
The biggest downfall for Railroads here in the states is that perceived travel time. For example if I were to go from Detroit to Chicago (I live near Detroit so I know these numbers off hand) the Flight time is 2hrs; the train takes 4hrs. However if you calculate the other times involved in flying the train is actually quicker. It'll take me about 45mins to drive to the airport, another 15 finding parking. I need to be their for security an hour before hand. I'm then about an hour away from downtown Chicago, so now I'm 5hrs of time spent getting to Chicago. Whereas the train is 4hrs. But the average person doesn't look at that, they see 2hr flight or 4hr train trip (or 5hr drive).
peter
Is it possible to redo the gearing at Beech Grove or Erie, PA to allow faster speeds?
Double the cost for track that would be used only half as much?
Absolutely. But with higher gearing, we need more gutsy motors (cause we now have higher minimum speeds) and more horsepower, too (to get over that low speed minimum quickly without burning up).
I take it that the cost of that would be too much for Amtrak?
Choose where to put your money. $2mil for a new loco (more for new designs), $650-1000K for a new car (less for rebuild), or about $2mil for 1 mile of track (dependant on safety equipment and track speeds). And right now they want to redo a fair chunk of the NEC track and trains. That's a lot of pocket change.
ANYONE: Please correct me if my numbers are off.
Hmmm.....that means that Amtrak wouldn't be getting newer locomotives for the Michigan Line here until after they get their new Metra-like Bilevels, correct?
Blutorse4792
Now T:ANE I can get into
I understand your sentiment. I'm extremely grateful to reside in a country with bar none, the finest freight railroad system in the world.
You Know gang we all started with the same type of rail systems(Europe & US) But During probably in the 30's,40's and 50,s..The US took a different path in Rail Systems..The Big Oil Companies and the Tire & Rubber Companies wanted the american people to use more cars and Buses..So they could sell there product..They even bought out alot of streetcars, Interurban Companies to speed up there Process..Then there came along the Interstate System which even sold more cars, Trucks etc..But I truly believe it was the Oil industry that saw it happen, and they were clapping there hands..Europe didn,t do this, now look..Now we(some of us) are thinking about light rail and HSR..As population increases more and more thought turn HSR..
amtrak2041864
High Speed Rail!!
Blutorse4792
Now T:ANE I can get into
The supremacy of the automobile was inevitable in a giant country with spread-out urban centers. True, there were some shady dealings like the streetcar scandal, and the government funded highway construction didn't help, but it was bound to happen sooner or later. Perhaps someday, population density in the United States will reach a point where long distance rail travel once again becomes a viable alternative to car travel or flight, but until then, it's not something that we need.
Furthermore, a lot of people are quick to point their fingers at car/oil companies (Not singling anyone out in particular, I too used to feel this way) but they didn't act alone. The very same progressive types who are clamoring for this stuff are the ideological descendants of the folks who urged Americans to buy cars in order to combat the "evil transit barons" like Sam Insull and Henry Huntington.
Furthermore, a lot of people are quick to point their fingers at car/oil companies (Not singling anyone out in particular, I too used to feel this way) but they didn't act alone. The very same progressive types who are clamoring for this stuff are the ideological descendants of the folks who urged Americans to buy cars in order to combat the "evil transit barons" like Sam Insull and Henry Huntington.
Last edited:
Hi Everybody.
I feel that many Americans do not really understand the advantages of high speed rail especially for business travellers. It can be that the actual time of travel between destinations can be achieved quicker by air than by rail even when HST journeys are involved, but when travelling by rail people can use their phones, laptops or tablets to be in directly touch with their offices or customers. No other form of transport can in any way rival that.
I am posting this from a British HST travelling down from London Paddington to North Somerset (UK). All around me are people phoning their offices, compiling reports or talking to customers of their companies. That makes this train a travelling office with all the extra productivity benefits for the various organizations that my fellow travelers work for.
If they were travelling by air or car their journey would be downtime by way of just having to sit there on an aircraft or bear all the frustrations of driving without being able to do anything else when travelling by road. Earlier in the week I travelled up to Manchester and prepared much of my paperwork for a meeting with a customer on the journey and then compiled a price quote for that customer on the return journey and emailed it into the office for release next day.
HST rail transforms travel for businesses making them more competitive and reduces cost by its productivity benefit. For those of us looking in on America from outside the above business benefits could be very much what the nation needs.
Bill
I feel that many Americans do not really understand the advantages of high speed rail especially for business travellers. It can be that the actual time of travel between destinations can be achieved quicker by air than by rail even when HST journeys are involved, but when travelling by rail people can use their phones, laptops or tablets to be in directly touch with their offices or customers. No other form of transport can in any way rival that.
I am posting this from a British HST travelling down from London Paddington to North Somerset (UK). All around me are people phoning their offices, compiling reports or talking to customers of their companies. That makes this train a travelling office with all the extra productivity benefits for the various organizations that my fellow travelers work for.
If they were travelling by air or car their journey would be downtime by way of just having to sit there on an aircraft or bear all the frustrations of driving without being able to do anything else when travelling by road. Earlier in the week I travelled up to Manchester and prepared much of my paperwork for a meeting with a customer on the journey and then compiled a price quote for that customer on the return journey and emailed it into the office for release next day.
HST rail transforms travel for businesses making them more competitive and reduces cost by its productivity benefit. For those of us looking in on America from outside the above business benefits could be very much what the nation needs.
Bill