Lead Service Attendant
- Dec 25, 2016
Glad to see the good people of Alma welding, adhering, and screwing this project together. Avelia Liberty’s, Michigan Made!
I wasn’t clear. I was responding to post No. 129 with the Rail Journal article. Apologies for the confusion.
Thank God they ditched the utterly horrific name “Avelia Liberty”. h34r:A picture of the new Acela 21 (as it's apparently called now) doing compression testing from the NGEC meeting:
http://americantrainz.com/personal/New-US-Trains/Acela 21 testing.jpg
quoteAlstom is now employing around 1,000 people at Hornell.
US at present does not appear to have the capability to effectively test a train at "upward of 200 mph". There is no established practice. There is upgraded documents that define a new class of trains, and basically requires a case by case evaluation of the entire train/track/traction etc.. AFAIK only EU, Japan and China are actually capable of off the shelf testing and certifying such a beast but of course to their established practices and standards, not the theoretical US ones. So it is pure feel good BS.Thanks. I still feel like the statement “trains traveling upwards of 200 miles an hour” is warping the truth a bit. I mean, what even would the point be in them “tweaking” them enough to bring it up to 200, if they won’t be exceeding 160 in service anytime soon?
Yeah, and it was ******* jet powered. Does that seem like a reasonable standard for full size passenger trains?Talk about the new Acela speed. In the 1960's The New York Central RR built an experimental train called "The Black Beetle" The Black Beetle ran a series of time trials over existing tracks running between Butler, Indiana and Stryker, Ohio. The long, straight, and level stretch of railway provided an ideal testing area for the train. During its trial runs, the Black Beetle hit an astounding 183.681 mph, which still stands as the high speed record for self-propelled light rail in the United States.
If a train went that fast in the 1960's ,track technology must be there to take speeds like that 50-+ years later
Keep in mind the name "Avelia Liberty" is the product name that Alstom came up with. The Amtrak name is Acela.Thank God they ditched the utterly horrific name “Avelia Liberty”. h34r:
It'll also be interesting to see how long it'll take Amtrak to upgrade track speed from 150 to 160. But that is a bigger task then meets the eye.They will be capable of 186mph if tracks to support such were available. They can be tweaked to upto 200 with a little work. As such they are unlikely to operate on the NEC above 160 for the foreseeable future.
I know that. I'm still glad I won't be hearing these train sets referred to by such a ghastly name.
Oh that's already a lost cause. They bungled the "upgrade" between County and Ham so badly that there will be basically no speed upgrades. Not to mention that the FRA has still not responded about upping Tier II crash standards to 160mph from 150.It'll also be interesting to see how long it'll take Amtrak to upgrade track speed from 150 to 160. But that is a bigger task then meets the eye.
Not as much of a lost cause as you'd think. The signaling was upgraded to Rule 562 meaning Cab Signals only between interlockings and Tracks 1, 3, and 4 have the upgraded overhead. I believe they will be working on Track 2 this year. Yes the project was completely botched, but things are still progressing with it.Oh that's already a lost cause. They bungled the "upgrade" between County and Ham so badly that there will be basically no speed upgrades. Not to mention that the FRA has still not responded about upping Tier II crash standards to 160mph from 150.
I do have to agree with you here.Hey, two out of three for the NEC isn't bad!!!
The problem is that the FRA specs don’t line up with each other on this. The track is Class 8 which allows 160, but the Tier II crashworthiness standards that are required for >125mph running on non-exclusive track (this standard was basically made just for the Acela) only allow 150. Amtrak submitted a request to raise this to 160 a few years back, but the FRA response has not been made public. It was also submitted only a few weeks before the Philly wreck in 2015, so the ensuing string of wrecks immediately followed by the unnecessary management-induced existential crisis at the company may have put a damper on things.Keep in mind that the trackage and overhead on the Shoreline is already capable for 160 mph running. And that's a total of about 35 miles.
Tier 2 Alternate compliance is acceptable for above 125, so we can essentially buy European units now. With that comes Amtrak being able to upgrade the mas from 150 to 160 on all appropriate sections (i.e. the catenary still has to support it and the track has to be the appropriate class). I'm not sure how much track that applies to, but I've heard it's not insignificant.Also the original Tier II standard has been modified in the overhaul of those standards to allow CEM, supposedly. That is what makes a more or less of the shelf TGV with some tweaks acceptable, which was not back in the Acela days. Tier II in its original form was written by what amounts to a bunch of rank amateurs when it come to doing any high speed standards. The question is, has FRA managed to hire enough 21st century engineers or is it still pushing 1950 vintage stuff upscaled or is it now actually upto speed to handle anything above 125mph reasonably.
Frankly, the American fedral transportation regulation agencies which used to be an envy of the world, are collectively not having a very good time these days.
Could you point me to the CFR revision section where this "Tier 2 Alternative" is specified by FRA? Did you simply mean Tier III by that phrase?Tier 2 Alternate compliance is acceptable for above 125, so we can essentially buy European units now. With that comes Amtrak being able to upgrade the mas from 150 to 160 on all appropriate sections (i.e. the catenary still has to support it and the track has to be the appropriate class). I'm not sure how much track that applies to, but I've heard it's not insignificant.
The whole point of the 150 to 160 upgrade is that it requires no work besides updating ACSES. The track, catenary, and rolling stock is already capable, it's just one single regulation that doesn't match up with the others that needs to be changed.Frankly, I think there would be a lot more benefit if they could get Metro North to upgrade the maximum speed between New Rochelle and New Haven to 80 mph rather than worrying about 160 mph vs. 150 mph. On my recent Acela trip, we were mostly going ~40-50 mph through that section, occasionally speeding up to 70 mph on short stretches. The cars on the paralleling I-95 were definitely going faster, even when they were jammed up. I'll bet if you could upgrade that section, you might shave 30 minutes off the NYP-BOS times.