What are the official speed limits in the corridor?

[Crescent ATN & TCL]

What are the official speed limits for NEC trains? So far this is what I have come up with from what people have said in the past.

These are the top speeds I have been told NEC trains run.

Acela south of NYP-135

Acela north of NYP-150

AEM-7 Regional - 125

AEM-7 LD, no non-disc brake cars i.e. MHCs-110

HHP-8 Regionals south of NYP-125

HHP-8 Regionals north of NYP-135 (only in 150 mph sections for Acela, 125 everywhere else)

HHP-8 LD no non-disc brake cars i.e. MHCs-125

P42-LD no non-disc brake cars i.e. MHCs-100, 110 for re-geared versions

P42-Any other disc brake train, i.e. unscheduled/extra trains- 100, 110 for re-geared versions

Any non-disc brake train-90

Any light loco movement-50

Any freight-50

Freights with Amtrak Pilots and dispatcher approval-70, may require a P42 to override ATS system

E60 (when they were still in use)-90

All non-Amtrak trains-90, i.e. MARC, SEPTA, NJT, Metro North, Conn-DOT, MBTA

The ATS system has 5mph buffer, so an engineer could exceed the limits as long as he keeps the speed below the buffer.

*The three statements below are rumors I have heard that seem plausible.*

I have also heard all trains must slow to 110 for any curve, 120 for Acelas.

Supposedly the first set of P42's were geared for 103, later some were built geared for 110, and then some of the 103 geared versions were re-geared at Beech Grove during overhauls to 110.

I have heard that a few were re-geared to 120 as part of a plan to have diesels that could haul regionals in case of a longterm power outage in the corridor.

The Acelas were supposed to have a top speed of 175 and were supposed to be able to corner faster but due to a clerical error the trainsets were built 10 inches too wide. Supposedly this was enough to cause the passing trains to touch if both had a tilting mechanism failure where the trains were leaning toward each other. To solve this they were modified to only tilt 4 degrees rather than the designed 8. Also Amtrak is going to replace the catenary south of NYP and raise the speed to 150 there as well. Supposedly the catenary south of NYP doesn't have the constant tensioning feature of the catenary north of NYP. This causes a speed restriction of 135 south of NYP. The heat and cold affects the wires to the point that they can sag in the summer so bad that they bounce and cause poor electrical contact. In the winter they become so tight that high speeds can rip them off the support structure.

I don't know how much of this is accurate but it seems reasonable and is what I have heard the most over time.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I doubt the part about the HHP-8. I believe that the Amfleets are limited to 125, regardless of what the engine can do. I think its one of the reasons they want to replace them, but I'm not sure.

 

[Crescent ATN & TCL]

I doubt the part about the HHP-8. I believe that the Amfleet's are limited to 125, regardless of what the engine can do. I think its one of the reasons they want to replace them, but I'm not sure.

Well here's another rumor I've heard that deals with this. Supposedly Bombardier tested the JetTrain* at over 160 at the Transportation Technology Center in Pueblo Colorado with an Amfleet/Ex Metroliner cabcar.

*For those who don't already know Bombardier also designed a non-electric version of the Acela that used diesel burning jet turbines. Its different than Turbotrains in that it uses electric traction motors instead of direct drive. It was reported to reach 160 in testing. They hoped to sell JetTrain trainsets to Amtrak for use in California and a few other places. This obviously fell through.

 

[AlanB]

I doubt the part about the HHP-8. I believe that the Amfleets are limited to 125, regardless of what the engine can do. I think its one of the reasons they want to replace them, but I'm not sure.

The HHP-8 is also only rated for 125 MPH operation, so while it might be possible to get it up to 135 MPH, it would not be a good idea to do that for very long.

So I concur, the 135 MPH running north of NYP is wrong.

 

[AlanB]

Well here's another rumor I've heard that deals with this. Supposedly Bombardier tested the JetTrain* at over 160 at the Transportation Technology Center in Pueblo Colorado with an Amfleet/Ex Metroliner cabcar.

That's not a rumor, in fact Amtrak eventually sold the ex-Metroliner cab car #9652, to Bombardier. However that wasn't an Amfleet car, it was built by Budd back in the late 60's, before there was an Amtrak.

I'm not sure if the car had any special modifications done to allow for the higher speeds, namely new trucks and wheels. However, as I understand things, one of the bigger reasons that nothing other than Acela operates over 125 MPH isn't because of the equipment being incapable of such operation, it's because without some form of tilt technology the G-Forces on the passengers starts to approach dangerous levels. Any car can be modified to allow faster running, but without tilt technology you tend to start plastering passengers against the windows. :lol: It's not really that servere, but it does get much harder to walk upright in a turn, and glasses start ending up in laps far more frequently than they do right now.

 

[BobWeaver]

The Acelas were supposed to have a top speed of 175 and were supposed to be able to corner faster but due to a clerical error the trainsets were built 10 inches too wide. Supposedly this was enough to cause the passing trains to touch if both had a tilting mechanism failure where the trains were leaning toward each other. To solve this they were modified to only tilt 4 degrees rather than the designed 8.

The tilting feature on Acelas has to be completely disabled between New York and New Haven because of the fact that a tilting train might foul an adjacent track. However, the tilt feature has no effect on the speed of the trainset, as it was installed purely for passenger comfort. For the sake of keeping Acela's passengers comfortable, if the tilt feature is inactive, then the train speed will of course go down.

 

[PRR 60]

...The Acelas were supposed to have a top speed of 175 and were supposed to be able to corner faster but due to a clerical error the trainsets were built 10 inches too wide. Supposedly this was enough to cause the passing trains to touch if both had a tilting mechanism failure where the trains were leaning toward each other. To solve this they were modified to only tilt 4 degrees rather than the designed 8. Also Amtrak is going to replace the catenary south of NYP and raise the speed to 150 there as well. Supposedly the catenary south of NYP doesn't have the constant tensioning feature of the catenary north of NYP. This causes a speed restriction of 135 south of NYP. The heat and cold affects the wires to the point that they can sag in the summer so bad that they bounce and cause poor electrical contact. In the winter they become so tight that high speeds can rip them off the support structure.
I don't know how much of this is accurate but it seems reasonable and is what I have heard the most over time.

The Acela top speed of 150mph was the original design specification. The train width issue is 4 inches, not 10 inches. That extra width eliminated tilt on the Metro North section between New Rochelle and New Haven, but is not a major factor in the speed equations since that is a lower speed section anyway. The issue resulting in the limit to the tilt in other areas was due to weight and wheel issues, not the car width.
Constant tension catenary exists north (railroad east) of New Haven to Boston and on a short segment of track in New Jersey. The catenary is only one factor holding the speed to 135 between NYP and WAS. The signal system south of NYP is also not set up for 150mph speeds. Upgrading the signalling, including all the various blocks, insulated joints, hardware and software would also be a major undertaking. Upgrading the catenary and signalling just to get an extra 15mph in some areas may not be worth the cost for the relatively small timing improvement.

The risk to the catenary in extreme heat is sagging and bunching in front of the pans. If the bunching gets bad enough it can snag in the pan which at high speed will create quite a mess. In real cold weather the wire can get very tight and fracture due to both the high tension and the increased cold temperature brittleness of the metal. A busted trolley wire can create a pretty big mess as well.

 

[Dutchrailnut]

I doubt the part about the HHP-8. I believe that the Amfleets are limited to 125, regardless of what the engine can do. I think its one of the reasons they want to replace them, but I'm not sure.

The HHP-8 is limited to max speed of cars it can pull

The Acela design speed is 150 mph yes it had to be tested with a possible 20% overspeed, it only maxed out at 169 mph but again that was test speed not design speed.

As for Jet train it only did 160 mph at AAR test center with one car, it never really was tried with multiple cars and according to insiders it really lacked power to even pull 4 cars at speed.

The P40's were geared for 103 but it was found in testing that 110 was a very much attainable speed with that same gearing.

The P42's still have same gearing and both type of engines are now rated at 110 mph without regearing.

Its just to bad that 99.1% of US rail network has a passenger train max speed of 79 mph.

So the gearing is a big waste.

 

[Crescent ATN & TCL]

The P40's were geared for 103 but it was found in testing that 110 was a very much attainable speed with that same gearing.The P42's still have same gearing and both type of engines are now rated at 110 mph without regearing.

Its just to bad that 99.1% of US rail network has a passenger train max speed of 79 mph.

So the gearing is a big waste.

It is rather sad that Amtrak isn't allowed to break speed limits which was the norm in 50s and 60s. Almost every train pre-Amtrak was limited by the locomotive and not the posted speed limits. A railroad wasn't going to let one of it biggest forms of advertisement be slow/late, speed and time keeping helped attract freight customers. The tracks in many locations are better now that they ever have been. I have seen many videos and read many books about passenger trains in the 50s and 60s the Santa Fe used to boast that the Super Chief broke 100 every trip through the desert. When it was turned over to Amtrak as the Southwest Chief the speed limits started being enforced. Mainly because freight railroads no longer got the benefit of advertising from their passenger trains so speed became a nuisance more than something they had pride in. This is just one of many instances of speeds becoming much lower after Amtrak took over. Almost all trains had faster schedules before Amtrak than they do now.

There was a news report in Lincoln, Alabama that a police officer clocked the Southern Crescent traveling over 100 through downtown in the 1970s and the city threatened to give the Southern Railway a speeding ticket for exceeding the 79mph speed limit. I wish I could find a online version of this to post. It may have been a advertising stunt but the train had the power and the track is straight enough through the area.

Below is a funny excerpt about dining after Amtrak took over.

As a privately run operation, the Southern Crescent became a standout operation, the last of a kind in the United States. However, revenue losses forced Southern Railway to reconsider and the train was turned over to Amtrak in 1979. In 1978 it had a full-service dining car with linen tablecloths, a real kitchen and excellent fried chicken. When the Crescent was converted to Amtrak, the chef of the dining car observed that they would have to "learn how to talk like a Yankee and run a microwave oven."

 

[George Harris]

I have seen many videos and read many books about passenger trains in the 50s and 60s the Santa Fe used to boast that the Super Chief broke 100 every trip through the desert.

During the 50's the speed limit for much of the track on which the Super Chief ran was 100 mph. At this time much of it west of Albuquerque is still 90 mph. Why not still 100 mph? Because the FRA track safety standards have no break point between 90 and 110 mph, and the 110 mph requirements are significantly more stringent than the 90 mph requirements. The reduction is speeds is not all because of the company decisions. A lot of 79 mph track could be 90 mph but for the FRA signal system requirements first imposed by the ICC in the early 1950's. (If you see a line with a freight train speed limit of 70 mph, this says the track quality is such that a passenger train speed limit of 90 mph is acceptable by FRA track safety standards). Up until the ICC imposed limits, there were rail lines that allowed passenger trains 90 mph with no signal system what so ever.

 

[VT Hokie]

VIA Rail in Canada still runs at up to 100 mph without cab signals.

Crescent,

The HHP-8 is designed to cruise at 135 mph, but is limited to 125 mph in revenue service just like the AEM-7's. Likewise, when pulling a long distance train with Heritage and Viewliner equipment, the HHP-8 is limited to 110 just like the AEM-7.

Some commuter trains on the NEC go faster than 90. MARC's bilevel express trains travel at up to 125 mph. NJ Transit runs its trains at up to 100 mph.

The Acela Express has a design speed of 165 mph, and was always intended to have a max operating speed of 150 mph in revenue service. For a while the Acela was limited to 130 mph on all curves. However, that restriction has been lifted on a couple of very gradual curves on the NEC.

 

[George Harris]

VIA Rail in Canada still runs at up to 100 mph without cab signals.

Because it is the US FRA. Canada has quite a few differences in laws in this area.

 

[Crescent ATN & TCL]

I doubt the part about the HHP-8. I believe that the Amfleets are limited to 125, regardless of what the engine can do. I think its one of the reasons they want to replace them, but I'm not sure.

As for Jet train it only did 160 mph at AAR test center with one car, it never really was tried with multiple cars and according to insiders it really lacked power to even pull 4 cars at speed.

The Acela power units only pulls 3 cars each. JetTrain is supposed to be used exactly as an Acela and the cars are supposed to be entirely interchangeable, and JetTrain will even be able to MU with the Acelas in the NEC in TGV fashion. So if it can pull 3 cars at speed it will be exactly equivalent to the Acelas in their current configuration.

Even if 150 is not possible 125+ would be great on its own, it is also supposed to have the same tilting mechanism as the Acelas. As far as track limitations it will be able to exceed all current limits by 15-25% on the subject of PTC and 79mph limitations the FRA is seriously considering making PTC mandatory through a program similar to the ADA act for platforms and the Enivornmental regulations for locomotive exhaust that will basically be a list of deadlines for certain steps to be taken eventually resulting in complete compliance.

Also High-Speed grade crossings are being designed and studied. They would be inherently different in that it would be entirely impossible to drive around/through them without using so much force that it would damage the vehicle. They would work exactly as current grade crossings but once they come down they would slide toward the track by about and inch into steel plates that would basically be like hollow steel cubes cut in half on the diagonal and set in the pavement with the flat ends being on the bottom and toward the tracks so that they would provide the same resistance as a door frame does on a door and allow the gates to lock in place and resist impact. They would move very easily toward the exterior of the crossing should someone get trapped in the gates. This would work like a door in that they only open in one direction no matter how much force is applied. These could also be used on standard speed rail.

 

[Dutchrailnut]

The Acela can not legally MU with a other Acela never mind the jet train.

The Jet train project is dead and powercar is stored at pueblo test center, the powercar is not owned by bombardier but by USDOT, they paid for entire demo project.

 

[Crescent ATN & TCL]

The Acela can not legally MU with a other Acela never mind the jet train.The Jet train project is dead and powercar is stored at pueblo test center, the powercar is not owned by bombardier but by USDOT, they paid for entire demo project.

JetTrain has been put on hold in the US and Canada because there is no money at VIA or Amtrak to purchase them.

Bombardier is currently negotiating with British railroads about possibly using a slightly modified version of the JetTrain to replace the aging HST 125s. I think they are going to do some re-engineering to increase pulling power, and reduce acceleration while still keeping the weight down, The cars for the European version would look like the Acela cars but be much lighter. If the deal happens the HST 125 speeds will be raised to 150mph. The JetTrain gets much more fuel economy and is lighter than the current HSTs and is expected to be alot cheaper to operate.

Australia has also expressed interest in the JetTrain to supplement current high speed trains and to allow for high speed service that can leave electrified track to travel to cities on standard speed rail.

Amtrak originally intended to use them to provide Acela service between WAS and Newport News, VA essentially bring the service to the entire route of the Regionals. Illinois toyed with them for the Hiawatha trains but after track upgrades ran too high they decided to stick with the Horizons.

I remember someone saying it ran off of expensive jet fuel. The Jet Train uses diesel fuel not kerosene. Its not powered by a jet like on an aircraft, it a jet turbine.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

I believe if you take the number of track miles from NYP to WAS, figure out how long it would take to cover that number of miles at 135 MPH and at 150 MPH, and calculate the difference, it's less than 10 minutes. In practice, upgrading the catenary and signal system wouldn't even provide that much speed improvement if the areas that don't currently reach 135 MPH were unchanged.

I think if real money is going to be spent on speed improvements for the whole route, it would be worth setting a higher target (maybe 200 MPH).

I also wonder if building new tunnels near Baltimore would end up being cheaper and more effective at shaving minutes off the trip than replacing hundreds of miles of catenary.

 

[AlanB]

Amtrak originally intended to use them to provide Acela service between WAS and Newport News, VA essentially bring the service to the entire route of the Regionals. Illinois toyed with them for the Hiawatha trains but after track upgrades ran too high they decided to stick with the Horizons.

AFAIK Amtrak's only involvement in the Jet train experiment was to loan Bombardier a coach and sell them a cab car for testing purposes. I'm not aware of any agreements or even any intentions/hopes by Amtrak to use the Jet train on any route, much less WAS to NPN.

 

[Chafford1]

Bombardier is currently negotiating with British railroads about possibly using a slightly modified version of the JetTrain to replace the aging HST 125s. I think they are going to do some re-engineering to increase pulling power, and reduce acceleration while still keeping the weight down, The cars for the European version would look like the Acela cars but be much lighter. If the deal happens the HST 125 speeds will be raised to 150mph. The JetTrain gets much more fuel economy and is lighter than the current HSTs and is expected to be alot cheaper to operate.

I'm not aware of any negotiations on this in the UK.

Hitachi and a consortium including Siemens and Bombardier are currenting bidding for the Intercity Express Programme (IEP) which will replace current diesel (HST) and electric intercity trains in the UK with new trains from 2013. There will be electric, diesel and bi-mode versions - the latter will be an electric multiple unit with a diesel power car attached which will be able to run on electrified and non-electrified routes.

More information at: http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/intercityexpress/

 

[Crescent ATN & TCL]

Bombardier is currently negotiating with British railroads about possibly using a slightly modified version of the JetTrain to replace the aging HST 125s. I think they are going to do some re-engineering to increase pulling power, and reduce acceleration while still keeping the weight down, The cars for the European version would look like the Acela cars but be much lighter. If the deal happens the HST 125 speeds will be raised to 150mph. The JetTrain gets much more fuel economy and is lighter than the current HSTs and is expected to be alot cheaper to operate.

I'm not aware of any negotiations on this in the UK.

Hitachi and a consortium including Siemens and Bombardier are currently bidding for the Intercity Express Programme (IEP) which will replace current diesel (HST) and electric intercity trains in the UK with new trains from 2013. There will be electric, diesel and bi-mode versions - the latter will be an electric multiple unit with a diesel power car attached which will be able to run on electrified and non-electrified routes.

More information at: http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/intercityexpress/

Yes this is exactly what I was talking about in the article I read the diesel version was going to essentially be a redesigned JetTrain and the major differences were in revising the design to European standards and making the trains longer by cutting weight in the cars which will essentially have an Acela car body. The electrics are supposed to be based on the Acela but will also have other design changes. Siemens is in charge of propulsion, Bombardier in charge of car body and the other companies have various other components. As part of this deal Bombardier gave Siemens the JetTrain and Acela's designs along with the propulsion system from the JetTrain. Low track forces and good fuel economy from the JetTrain design are supposed to be carried over into this design and are two of the big selling points.

 

[Dutchrailnut]

The Jet train technology is not owned by Bombardier, its owned by and paid for bu USDOT. If it were a viable option the technology was tobe marketed by Bombardier having first refusal.

I have not seen anything in both US or international press that sugest that anyone is considering Jet tain technology.

Cresent ATN you have to show me some proof of your stories.

The Jet train had disapointing performance in both pulling power and fuel use.

 

[jis]

Yes this is exactly what I was talking about in the article I read the diesel version was going to essentially be a redesigned JetTrain and the major differences were in revising the design to European standards and making the trains longer by cutting weight in the cars which will essentially have an Acela car body. The electrics are supposed to be based on the Acela but will also have other design changes. Siemens is in charge of propulsion, Bombardier in charge of car body and the other companies have various other components. As part of this deal Bombardier gave Siemens the JetTrain and Acela's designs along with the propulsion system from the JetTrain. Low track forces and good fuel economy from the JetTrain design are supposed to be carried over into this design and are two of the big selling points.

I do not find this line of reasoning particularly credible knowing what I have read on the matter.

Acelas and by extension the Jet Train are not known to be either very kind on the tracks, or for being very light and energy efficient. They happen to meet FRA Tier II collision requirements which makes them way heavier than they need to be for operation in Europe, and are totally irrelevant as far as European UIC regulations are concerned. I would be completely astonished if someone in their right mind even bothers to consider the Acelas as a base for a design for deployment for high speed operations anywhere in Europe. Why one earth would someone in Europe with access to half a dozen different designs that are lighter, more energy efficient, have lower axle loading and have better handling on tracks bother with this piece of American curiosity completely beats me.

So unless I can see a specific publication in a reputable journal supporting the claims being made, I would just file this away as a piece of fanciful hearsay for the time being.

 

[jis]

I doubt the part about the HHP-8. I believe that the Amfleets are limited to 125, regardless of what the engine can do. I think its one of the reasons they want to replace them, but I'm not sure.

That is correct. Only FRA Tier II compliant equipment is allowed to operate at speeds greater than 125mph. One of the tier II requirements is no break in sill, i.e. no doors with internal steps to access low level platforms. Amfleets do not meet that requirment nor are they 1,000,000 lb buff strength cars. The only way they can operate commercially above 125mph is through an FRA waiver, which they currently do not have. Only Tier II compliant equipment available today are the Acela sets, and for reasons that I don;t fully understand, apparently they are Tier II compliant only as complete sets, not as individual cars.

Also any Heritage equipment in the consist immediately restricts its speed to 110mph.

On a different matter....

NJTransit bilevel pulled by ALP-46s are allowed 100mph on NEC. NJT is in the process of getting the bi-levels cleared for 125mph. The new ALP-46As that start arriving in 2009 will be certified for 125mph operation on NEC.

 

[Chafford1]

Yes this is exactly what I was talking about in the article I read the diesel version was going to essentially be a redesigned JetTrain and the major differences were in revising the design to European standards and making the trains longer by cutting weight in the cars which will essentially have an Acela car body. The electrics are supposed to be based on the Acela but will also have other design changes. Siemens is in charge of propulsion, Bombardier in charge of car body and the other companies have various other components. As part of this deal Bombardier gave Siemens the JetTrain and Acela's designs along with the propulsion system from the JetTrain. Low track forces and good fuel economy from the JetTrain design are supposed to be carried over into this design and are two of the big selling points.

I do not find this line of reasoning particularly credible knowing what I have read on the matter.

Acelas and by extension the Jet Train are not known to be either very kind on the tracks, or for being very light and energy efficient. They happen to meet FRA Tier II collision requirements which makes them way heavier than they need to be for operation in Europe, and are totally irrelevant as far as European UIC regulations are concerned. I would be completely astonished if someone in their right mind even bothers to consider the Acelas as a base for a design for deployment for high speed operations anywhere in Europe. Why one earth would someone in Europe with access to half a dozen different designs that are lighter, more energy efficient, have lower axle loading and have better handling on tracks bother with this piece of American curiosity completely beats me.

So unless I can see a specific publication in a reputable journal supporting the claims being made, I would just file this away as a piece of fanciful hearsay for the time being.

The Jet Train would also be far too wide for the British Loading Gauge which requires trains to be much narrower than in the US and Europe.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I assume that with the ALP-46As doing NEC service, that would spell the end for the sweedish meatballs, then?

Anyway, why would anyone want the JetTrain? I suspect, if Amtrak wanted non-electric high-speed equipment, they'd want anything BUT the JetTrain. With the problems Amtrak had with the Acela, I doubt they'd even buy more Acela sets.

 

[Crescent ATN & TCL]

Yes this is exactly what I was talking about in the article I read the diesel version was going to essentially be a redesigned JetTrain and the major differences were in revising the design to European standards and making the trains longer by cutting weight in the cars which will essentially have an Acela car body. The electrics are supposed to be based on the Acela but will also have other design changes. Siemens is in charge of propulsion, Bombardier in charge of car body and the other companies have various other components. As part of this deal Bombardier gave Siemens the JetTrain and Acela's designs along with the propulsion system from the JetTrain. Low track forces and good fuel economy from the JetTrain design are supposed to be carried over into this design and are two of the big selling points.

I do not find this line of reasoning particularly credible knowing what I have read on the matter.

Acelas and by extension the Jet Train are not known to be either very kind on the tracks, or for being very light and energy efficient. They happen to meet FRA Tier II collision requirements which makes them way heavier than they need to be for operation in Europe, and are totally irrelevant as far as European UIC regulations are concerned. I would be completely astonished if someone in their right mind even bothers to consider the Acelas as a base for a design for deployment for high speed operations anywhere in Europe. Why one earth would someone in Europe with access to half a dozen different designs that are lighter, more energy efficient, have lower axle loading and have better handling on tracks bother with this piece of American curiosity completely beats me.

So unless I can see a specific publication in a reputable journal supporting the claims being made, I would just file this away as a piece of fanciful hearsay for the time being.

This was the only recent article I could find that you didn't need an account or be living in the UK to access:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/s...ticle788742.ece

As far as the track wear both the Acela's and the JetTrain cause less damage than a loco-cars-loco consist of conventional Amtrak equipment would at top speed, i.e P-42, Business Car, Café, 4 Amfleets-P-42 at 110mph or AEM-7, Business class, Café, 4 Amfleets,AEM-7 at 125mph.

They are not planning to sell the JetTrain or Acela in their current forms to any company in the UK. Both designs in will weigh considerably less in their European version, they will use lighter metals, remove the extra reinforcing to meet FRA tier-II, and essentially cut and lighten every component on board while bringing them up to European standards. There is talk that the trainsets could become articulated in the European version cutting out a considerable amount of weight, if they are articulated traction motors may be placed through out the trainsets increasing traction and acceleration. The JetTrain turbine is going to be used in the diesel version, basically Bombardier is looking for a way to use the technology it invested in the US that has yet to make a return because all of the passenger rail agencies in North America are too cash strapped to purchase the JetTrain. All VIA and Amtrak have been able to afford are orders of cars to be used in currently existing services and have had no money to institute new higher speed services. They are hoping to finally make a return on their investment in Europe. All of this is still going through the bidding process so nothing is official.