Acela 21 (Avelia Liberty) development, testing and deployment (2018 - 1Q 2024)

[Acela150]

Was the original Acela procurement on time?

No. IIRC a year and a half plus delayed.

 

[jis]

No. IIRC a year and a half plus delayed.

And then there was the Yaw Damper thing that took them off line briefly, with brief restoration of Metroliner Service. There was also the, what turned out to be spurious, MNRR thing about disallowing tilting on MNRR.

 

[AmtrakMaineiac]

When was the last time Amtrak procured cars and put them into service based on the original timeline? Viewliner 1? Superliner 2? Regardless of whose fault this particular problem is Amtrak has an abysmal record/luck with acquiring new cars.

It's what happens when you have a North American market too small to support a regular production line of equipment combined with designs that have to be unique to the market due to crash standards making it difficult to use off the shelf designs as used in the rest of the world. So everything is bespoke to our little market and procurement happens over long intervals so it seems we are almost starting from scratch with each procurement cycle.

 

[jiml]

It's what happens when you have a North American market too small to support a regular production line of equipment combined with designs that have to be unique to the market due to crash standards making it difficult to use off the shelf designs as used in the rest of the world. So everything is bespoke to our little market and procurement happens over long intervals so it seems we are almost starting from scratch with each procurement cycle.

Many of us are old enough to know when this wasn't the case. The latest car orders suggest that both Amtrak and VIA also realize the problem and are so far headed forward with largely off-the-shelf models. The new Acela may be the last Amtrak-specific train built.

 

[jis]

Many of us are old enough to know when this wasn't the case. The latest car orders suggest that both Amtrak and VIA also realize the problem and are so far headed forward with largely off-the-shelf models. The new Acela may be the last Amtrak-specific train built.

I think what we can get off the shelf now is the basics, the body shells and to some extent the trucks. Still the trucks have to be tested and fixed to be able to operate safely on the tracks they have to operate on. That is the current problem with the new Acela. The body shells are pretty much off the shelf. And then there is of course the HV electrical and control systems that have to be compatible with the system available on the track segments where it will operate etc., leaving aside the internal furnishings and facilities.

So all in all it save quite a bit on customization, but still there are significant areas of customization which are unavoidable. Recall the endless delays in France of getting things as much off the shelf as they could, caused by problems getting the darned thing to work properly with the control systems in place. There is a certain amount of risk that simply cannot be avoided I suppose.

 

[nferr]

I think what we can get off the shelf now is the basics, the body shells and to some extent the trucks. Still the trucks have to be tested and fixed to be able to operate safely on the tracks they have to operate on. That is the current problem with the new Acela. The body shells are pretty much off the shelf. And then there is of course the HV electrical and control systems that have to be compatible with the system available on the track segments where it will operate etc., leaving aside the internal furnishings and facilities.

So all in all it save quite a bit on customization, but still there are significant areas of customization which are unavoidable. Recall the endless delays in France of getting things as much off the shelf as they could, caused by problems getting the darned thing to work properly with the control systems in place. There is a certain amount of risk that simply cannot be avoided I suppose.

They should have just ordered modified versions of the Aero with super deluxe interiors and upgraded amenities, service, etc. The fact that these new Acelas can run 160 MPH for miniscule distances on the NE corridor is a joke. I watch the Acelas crawl through Connecticut at about 60 miles an hour every day.

 

[jis]

They should have just ordered modified versions of the Aero with super deluxe interiors and upgraded amenities, service, etc. The fact that these new Acelas can run 160 MPH for miniscule distances on the NE corridor is a joke. I watch the Acelas crawl through Connecticut at about 60 miles an hour every day.

When these were ordered there were no Airos to modify. They simply did not exist.

 

[MARC Rider]

I watch the Acelas crawl through Connecticut at about 60 miles an hour every day.

60 miles per hour? You're lucky, it must have been a day with light traffic. Usually, it's 40 mph. (And, to be fair, it's only part of Connecticut, east of New Haven, the trains go faster than that, but certainly not 150 mph.

 

[west point]

No 160 MPH? What can you expect when congress has not allocated funds to meet deferred maintenance much less improve for 160. Now there are projects that will finally allow for schedule changes but do not expect schedule changes for several years. Now just get more reliability.

Sawtooth bridge rehab, Portal north and Portal south, more constant tension catenary in NJ, B&P tunnels replacement, ,Susquehanna bridge replacement, more 3rd and 4th tracks PHL - WAS. All that will allow for schedule reduction of maybe 20 minutes.

 

[jis]

No 160 MPH? What can you expect when congress has not allocated funds to meet deferred maintenance much less improve for 160. Now there are projects that will finally allow for schedule changes but do not expect schedule changes for several years. Now just get more reliability.

There will be a net total of a little under 100 miles of 160mph trackage in the NEC spine when these new trains go on line.

 

[Acela150]

Ok folks. Here is the latest that I can give you. It was not the test bed Prototype set that was sent back. Supposedly TS 5 according to other groups. I'm not sure exactly which set was sent back. But I will try to find out tomorrow (August 31st). However a set was sent back in it's place. This set has PC's 2118 and 2146. It's TS 8 according to other groups.

It seems that the set that was sent back had some retrofits to be performed, I'm not sure if the set that was sent back was fully completed.

 

[west point]

There will be a net total of a little under 100 miles of 160mph trackage in the NEC spine when these new trains go on line.

Interesting. Next question is how many sections of 160 MPH? What are the slower speeds at each end that trains will have to slow to? Each of those slower sections reduces the net 160 miles.

 

[jis]

Interesting. Next question is how many sections of 160 MPH?

3

What are the slower speeds at each end that trains will have to slow to? Each of those slower sections reduces the net 160 miles.

Generally 125. 135 in NJ.

 

[Thirdrail7]

Unless something dramatic occurs, I'd be surprised if you saw this set in service prior to September 2024. If we're unlikely, it may stretch until 2025. We should see some new testing commence soon though.

 

[MARC Rider]

3

Generally 125. 135 in NJ.

I've also seen 135 in parts of northeast Maryland.

 

[MARC Rider]

The news report was that computer modelling did not match the real world instrument results when running on the NEC.

I can see them using computer modeling to help design the thing in the beginning, but now that they have real trainsets and real data, why do they need to match the modeling to the data? After all, it's trains that run on the tracks, not computer models.

 

[AmtrakBlue]

I've also seen 135 in parts of northeast Maryland.

And DE. They've gone through NRK at or very close to 135. Passengers sometimes ask me how fast an Acela was that just blew by and I'll pull up the tracker's location history and show them.

 

[jis]

I've also seen 135 in parts of northeast Maryland.

And DE. They've gone through NRK at or very close to 135. Passengers sometimes ask me how fast an Acela was that just blew by and I'll pull up the tracker's location history and show them.

But there is no 160 in MD or DE. The question I was answering is what is the speed limit adjacent to the 160 segments for the new Acelas, not where there is 135.

 

[jis]

I can see them using computer modeling to help design the thing in the beginning, but now that they have real trainsets and real data, why do they need to match the modeling to the data? After all, it's trains that run on the tracks, not computer models.

The problem may be that a thing that was approved for 160mph based on Computer Modeling is not behaving like the Computer Model that forms the basis of the approval and is behaving worse. So either the train has to be fixed to match the Computer Model or the Computer Model has to be fixed to match the train and the latter would cause the train to be approved for some speed possibly much lower than the promised 160mph. That is the reason that matching the Computer Model is important. Without that there may be no high speed running at all.

 

[Thirdrail7]

The problem may be that a thing that was approved for 160mph based on Computer Modeling is not behaving like the Computer Model that forms the basis of the approval and is behaving worse.

 

[JamesWhitcombRiley]

I can see them using computer modeling to help design the thing in the beginning, but now that they have real trainsets and real data, why do they need to match the modeling to the data? After all, it's trains that run on the tracks, not computer models.

I have some limited experience working with engineers (pocket-protector, not stripey cap) on similar software. I can think of at least two reasons: to meet the designed spec, and to predict maintenance and failure.

For vibrations, here's how the math works. First, you don't want to hit a frequency resonant to the structure, or more precisely to linger on it. The example in every undergrad math textbook is the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in 1940: Tacoma Narrows Bridge (1940) - Wikipedia.

For rotating machinery, it's helpful to think of a musical piece viewed on an oscilloscope. You can tell there are sine curves somewhere in there, but they're all overlaid and different sizes and frequencies. And in our case, some of the vibrations are in the plane of the wheel, some in other directions. Wheel bearings, the high quality ones only made by two or three companies worldwide, are of course important. From the mess on your oscilloscope, you can use math to extract the underlying curves and directions. But to do so is some art and some science, and you use the published characteristics of the bearings, along with the rest of the structure (wheels, axles, train, tracks, rocks, who knows) to give the software very important hints. The result is you know the major components of the vibrations. In a musical piece, you get fairly nice curves and maybe can distinguish the instruments.

Now add management, pointy haired or not, purchasing and contract agents with checkbox forms, risk-averse lawyers, and the like, and money, and technicians and engineers. That's my guess.

By the way, I enjoyed my ride with a bicycle on MARC trains in Maryland.

 

[Bronzeman]

Out of curiosity, are the US crashworthiness standards that much more onerous than those in Europe? I often see those stamdards cited as one of the reasons why Amtrak cannot buy train sets that are closer to their off the shelf European counterparts.

One would think that, given Europe‘s extensive history with HDR, they would have developed sensible crashworthiness standards. It certainly appears to the casual observer that their standrds have, by and large, kept European passengers safe for decades. Does anyone have a view on whether our more stringent standards provide meaningful incremental safety benefits? Or is it more of a not invented here thing?

 

[jis]

Out of curiosity, are the US crashworthiness standards that much more onerous than those in Europe? I often see those stamdards cited as one of the reasons why Amtrak cannot buy train sets that are closer to their off the shelf European counterparts.

One would think that, given Europe‘s extensive history with HDR, they would have developed sensible crashworthiness standards. It certainly appears to the casual observer that their standrds have, by and large, kept European passengers safe for decades. Does anyone have a view on whether our more stringent standards provide meaningful incremental safety benefits? Or is it more of a not invented here thing?

US safety standards have recently been changed to better align with Europe recently which has enabled using the Siemens Viaggio with relatively little change (compared to what was required in the past) to create the American Venture cars and the Avelia Liberty, for example.

FRA has given further notice of rule making to clean up the safety standards which at present looks like an onion with many layers bolted onto the original standard created in early 20th Century, and align even better with global safety standards. There is a thread on that subject at:

https://www.amtraktrains.com/thread...or-passenger-equipment-safety-standard.85958/

 

[GDRRiley]

Out of curiosity, are the US crashworthiness standards that much more onerous than those in Europe? I often see those stamdards cited as one of the reasons why Amtrak cannot buy train sets that are closer to their off the shelf European counterparts.

One would think that, given Europe‘s extensive history with HDR, they would have developed sensible crashworthiness standards. It certainly appears to the casual observer that their standrds have, by and large, kept European passengers safe for decades. Does anyone have a view on whether our more stringent standards provide meaningful incremental safety benefits? Or is it more of a not invented here thing?

the US has mostly changed that now with FRA T1 alternative for trains under 125mph and FRA T3 for above 125mph.
Both are based on the EU crash standards with some minor modifications.

 

[Touchdowntom9]

US safety standards have recently been changed to better align with Europe recently which has enabled using the Siemens Viaggio with relatively little change (compared to what was required in the past) to create the American Venture cars and the Avelia Liberty, for example.

FRA has given further notice of rule making to clean up the safety standards which at present looks like an onion with many layers bolted onto the original standard created in early 20th Century, and align even better with global safety standards. There is a thread on that subject at:

https://www.amtraktrains.com/thread...or-passenger-equipment-safety-standard.85958/

Seems like the Viaggio cars are pretty darn heavy compared to the typical euro train trailer car, but maybe you are referring to other standards instead of just buff strength etc.