|
|
| PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday (1585514) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
| (1585514) | |
PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday |
|
|
Posted by chuchubob on Fri Sep 17 09:06:34 2021 Photographed from the Amtrak parking garage at 30th Street Station    
|
|
|
| (1585522) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday |
|
|
Posted by chicagomotorman on Fri Sep 17 13:41:31 2021, in response to PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday, posted by chuchubob on Fri Sep 17 09:06:34 2021. Nice! |
|
|
| (1585528) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Sep 17 14:44:35 2021, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday, posted by chicagomotorman on Fri Sep 17 13:41:31 2021. Looks nice, but two things kill me about that train. First, the continued existence of that tasteless "Acela" name, and second, the fact that the new trains don't have low-platform access. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1585529) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Sep 17 14:45:13 2021, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Sep 17 14:44:35 2021. That said, "Avelia Liberty" is even worse than "Acela". |
|
|
| (1585532) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday |
|
|
Posted by BILLBKLYN on Fri Sep 17 15:08:16 2021, in response to PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday, posted by chuchubob on Fri Sep 17 09:06:34 2021. That stupid European horn!! |
|
|
| (1585535) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Sep 17 15:13:24 2021, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday, posted by BILLBKLYN on Fri Sep 17 15:08:16 2021. |
|
|
| (1585536) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Sep 17 16:04:58 2021, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday, posted by BILLBKLYN on Fri Sep 17 15:08:16 2021. That too. |
|
|
| (1585546) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Fri Sep 17 17:46:27 2021, in response to PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday, posted by chuchubob on Fri Sep 17 09:06:34 2021. Nice shots. |
|
|
| (1585551) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday |
|
|
Posted by The silence on Fri Sep 17 18:27:56 2021, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Sep 17 14:44:35 2021. Why are you still on this lick that low bording should be included in every train?We live in an accessibility focused world, that’s not going to change anytime soon. |
|
|
| (1585553) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Sep 17 19:01:11 2021, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday, posted by The silence on Fri Sep 17 18:27:56 2021. Why are you still on this lick that low bording (sic) should be included in every train?Because the NEC still has low platforms; Washington Union Station particularly has low platforms, and the Metroliners could stop at them if need be. Never mind emergency stops. It also sends a message that the powers that be, who control intercity/interstate passenger rail, intend to never expand "high speed" operation beyond the NEC. Chicago Union Station? Hah. South of Washington? Hah. First-generation Acela moving to Keystone Service, with certain stations still having low platforms (including Harrisburg Union Station, never mind the theoretical extension to Pittsburgh)? Double hah. Any railfan should know this and be sensitive to this; after all, low platforms are still in the majority all over the USA. We live in an accessibility focused world, that’s not going to change anytime soon BS. Equating restricting trains to high platforms with "accessibility" is a complete canard. Metra has wheelchair lifts on its gallery cars, for just one example. Why do you hate trains so much? |
|
|
| (1585559) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday |
|
|
Posted by transittransit on Fri Sep 17 21:48:23 2021, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Sep 17 19:01:11 2021. You truly are obsessed with low platforms. Why is that a measure of a train for you? What station on the NEC has a low platform for a full length train? More importantly, what station has only a low platform? That’s what I thought High platforms are the way of the world, yes, because of accessibility and also because it decreases dwell time. A mix of high and low platforms for a single service also increases infrastructure costsNo, Acela type service is not going beyond D.C. anytime soon because mainly, Amtrak doesn’t own the track. Therefore, they have no plans to put up catenary. As for Acela, wouldn’t work on Keystone Service. Yes, platforms are one issue but the other is maintenance. There’s no way to service trains in Harrisburg (or Philly for that matter) Only maintenance bays these trains have access to is Sunnyside Yard in NYC. No room for the original Acela and so called “Acela 2”. Also, good for Metra. They can also cutoff one car unlike Acela. It runs as a trainset and generally has to be moved and maintained as such. Any why do you despise the name??? It’s actually taken pretty well, so much so that the news media has gotten around to calling the cities it connects, the “Acela Corridor”. Do you hate trains? |
|
|
| (1585567) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Sep 18 03:13:00 2021, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday, posted by transittransit on Fri Sep 17 21:48:23 2021. You truly are obsessed with low platformsLOL! So must the rest of the USA be, never mind Canada, since they are still in the majority. Before the MTA started rebuilding low platforms into high, it would have been way cheaper to the public to get rid of the high platforms at terminals and get low-floor EMUs and diesels, but hindsight is 20/20. So since you threw in that nonsequitur, does that mean you're obsessed with high platforms? You kinda begged the question. Since the federal government (who should not control any kind of passenger rail) forced Amtrak into having high-speed trains without low-platform access, the message was clear: The rest of the country is never getting true intercity high-speed rail, particularly any that can bring passengers into the northeastern coastal cities. Never mind the Acela having zero utility outside the NEC on any other corridors, or being able to use all platforms at Washington Union Station. What station on the NEC has a low platform for a full length train? More importantly, what station has only a low platform? That’s what I thought Wrong. When the Budd Metroliner started running, the majority of platforms were low. The UAC Turbotrain would not have been any use in Boston South Station when the platforms were still low, just like the Rohr Turboliner would have been equally useless unless it could use Rensselaer's low platforms. And in case you missed it, Washington Union Station still has low platforms on its lower level; if not, they could not run Superliners out of there. Metroliners could use those low platforms at WAS, as could some of the trains that Amtrak was testing prior to their big Acela blunder. High platforms are the way of the world, yes, because of accessibility and also because it decreases dwell time. A mix of high and low platforms for a single service also increases infrastructure costs You have not been outside the Northeast, have you? or out of the country? Lots of other countries have a mix of low and high platforms, even in Europe. I agree that mixing the two increases infrastructure costs, but we got stuck with what we got stuck with and before the "Acela", all trains could use both types of platform. If you think that high platforms truly decrease dwell times, you have not taken note of what happened on NJ Transit's portion of the NEC, where average speeds have decreased by 10 mph. And no, it has nothing to do with their move away from EMUs. No, Acela type service is not going beyond D.C. anytime soon because mainly, Amtrak doesn’t own the track That's not a reason. There are federally-designated high-speed corridors that are not Amtrak-owned; there would have been none if not for agreeing with the owners of those corridors, many of which have extra track space that Amtrak could actually put their own tracks on (particularly the former PRR in many places between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh). Never mind abandoned corridors that would be just fine for tilt trains, instead of converting them to rail trails that transport nothing of value. There is no reason whatsoever other than control and feeding of the egos in DC. And lest you forgot, Amtrak was teasing the X2000 in places far away from the NEC, and even teasing connections between the NEC and other corridors. (Take note of the X2000 south of WAS in 1993. And also, in its native country Sweden, the X2000 uses some rather low platforms; so much for "way of the world".) As for Acela, wouldn’t work on Keystone Service. Yes, platforms are one issue but the other is maintenance. There’s no way to service trains in Harrisburg (or Philly for that matter) No way to service them? So what was surreptitiously removed cannot be put back, and not for great expense? Think that GG1s back in the day went all the way back to Sunnyside for servicing? Nope; this is by design, because TPTB don't want to expand HSR in spite of their own promises. Remember, they were promising 160 mph on the NEC as far back as the late 1960s; do you think that repeating the same lie for fifty years should be rewarded with continued indifference? They can also cutoff one car unlike Acela. It runs as a trainset and generally has to be moved and maintained as such The cars are connected by drawbars. While it'd take more work to disconnect a drawbar, it is not impossible to do. But that's not supposed to be a commonplace occurrence. An(d) why do you despise the name??? It’s actually taken pretty well, so much so that the news media has gotten around to calling the cities it connects the “Acela Corridor” Think about what you just said. Never mind the insular implications of "Acela Corridor". I've always despised the name, particularly when they were attempting to rename every Amtrak train as some kind of "Acela"; or have you forgotten "Acela Regional" already? How about the stillborn "Acela Commuter", which the former Clockers were at one time to be renamed as? The name itself is insipid and not evocative whatsoever of train travel. |
|
|
| (1585571) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday |
|
|
Posted by chuchubob on Sat Sep 18 08:16:36 2021, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Sep 18 03:13:00 2021. I totally agree with your last sentiment: Acela Regional and Acela Commuter were ludicrous.With respect to low level platforms, ride a Keystone Service train in Pennsylvania and watch the elderly passengers struggle to go down the steps with luggage. |
|
|
| (1585573) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday |
|
|
Posted by kp5308 on Sat Sep 18 08:31:26 2021, in response to PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday, posted by chuchubob on Fri Sep 17 09:06:34 2021. Nice 'uns Bob...IIRC that set has no interior appointments and is loaded with sandbags or some type of dead weight for testing. |
|
|
| (1585578) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Sat Sep 18 09:44:27 2021, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday, posted by BILLBKLYN on Fri Sep 17 15:08:16 2021. I like it. Not the sound so much but that it riles people up and they'll pay attention to it more. |
|
|
| (1585579) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Sat Sep 18 09:47:01 2021, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Sep 17 14:44:35 2021. It's called the Avelia Liberty. "Acela II" is a slang term. |
|
|
| (1585580) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Sat Sep 18 09:48:51 2021, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday, posted by Fred G on Sat Sep 18 09:47:01 2021. I call it "Ophelia" |
|
|
| (1585581) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday |
|
|
Posted by JAzumah on Sat Sep 18 10:29:40 2021, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Sep 18 03:13:00 2021. It is impossible to build a high speed network without lots of slower trains to feed passengers. The focus needs to be on flexible high/low platform regional trains with low operating costs to build up the volume for high speed trains. The high speed trains themselves need to be able to service all platforms until the density increases to make a station that gets busy high platform. |
|
|
| (1585589) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Sep 18 13:09:34 2021, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday, posted by JAzumah on Sat Sep 18 10:29:40 2021. That's exactly my point. But some people insist on arguing with me with canards and red herrings.And making the high-speed trains high-platform only excludes systems that have retained all low platforms. Not to mention, having a wider HSR network, since something like the "Avelia Liberty" (ugh) is apparently capable of speeds as high as 186 mph, would encourage passenger systems that are currently all diesel and all low platform (like the DL&W lines out of Hoboken used to be) to electrify. |
|
|
| (1585607) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday |
|
|
Posted by Nasadowsk on Sat Sep 18 18:00:34 2021, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday, posted by Fred G on Sat Sep 18 09:44:27 2021. I do too, if only because it gets railfans’ panties in a wad.Nobody else gives a flying fuck what a train horn sounds like |
|
|
| (1585610) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sat Sep 18 18:19:18 2021, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday, posted by Fred G on Sat Sep 18 09:48:51 2021. yes. pretty, but mentally unstable |
|
|
| (1585611) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sat Sep 18 18:22:23 2021, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday, posted by chuchubob on Sat Sep 18 08:16:36 2021. not to mention having our own kinees age out. or having any friends, kin in wheelchairs. |
|
|
| (1585612) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Sep 18 18:52:46 2021, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday, posted by chuchubob on Sat Sep 18 08:16:36 2021. Porters or trainmen are supposed to assist with luggage. Guess that's another thing that went out the window with Amtrak. |
|
|
| (1585628) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sat Sep 18 21:11:40 2021, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Sep 18 18:52:46 2021. I remember right before Amtrak left GCT there were 4 red caps. They were Amtrak employees but they helped anyone who needed help as in to/from Amtrak/Metro-North trains or anyone who needed help with bags coming off the cab stand or the Shuttle passageway. Occasionally someone in a wheelchair would need a push up the big ramp when their train came in on one of the loop tracks. An Amtrak redcap (when available) would be there when the conductor would call ahead on the radio to have the train met. They cleaned up with tips big time.I don't know what they do in GCT nowadays if someone needs help coming off a MN train. |
|
|
| (1585631) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Sep 18 21:27:33 2021, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sat Sep 18 21:11:40 2021. This page lists stations offering Red Cap service.Wonder who came up with the appellation "red cap". It's the same as a mythical goblin-like being who has to keep his cap saturated in fresh human blood or else he would die if it dries out. |
|
|
| (1585633) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sat Sep 18 22:29:38 2021, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Sep 18 21:27:33 2021. " It's the same as a mythical goblin-like being who has to keep his cap saturated in fresh human blood or else he would die if it dries out."Interesting. Never thought of Amtrak red caps that way. I'll stick my neck out & opine that no one else did either! |
|
|
| (1585639) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Sep 19 01:05:34 2021, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sat Sep 18 22:29:38 2021. What about a certain Blue Oyster Cult song? (It's about passing someone "reds" or secobarbital via a kiss.) |
|
|
| (1585654) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday |
|
|
Posted by Bulk88 on Sun Sep 19 10:46:02 2021, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday, posted by transittransit on Fri Sep 17 21:48:23 2021. He hates high platforms because he needs to see a train wheels to foam. High platforms are like putting a nuns skirt around bare ass. |
|
|
| (1585668) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Sep 19 15:15:57 2021, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday, posted by Bulk88 on Sun Sep 19 10:46:02 2021. I don't hate high platforms per se, but I sure disapprove of mixing the two together, or spending zillions to convert low to high when low is just fine. Never mind the disadvantage of having a high platform system on main lines with three tracks or more, with one of the platform tracks closed necessitating a whole train of temporary platform cars to be hauled out or a temporary wooden platform to be built and then torn down.Not to mention the other reason I already stated, which relates to the train itself. Surprised you noobs couldn't figure that out. |
|
|
| (1585669) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday |
|
|
Posted by TransitChuckG on Sun Sep 19 16:09:05 2021, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday, posted by Bulk88 on Sun Sep 19 10:46:02 2021. When you get old and can't climb steps into trains, you will love high platforms. |
|
|
| (1585672) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Sep 19 19:22:12 2021, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday, posted by TransitChuckG on Sun Sep 19 16:09:05 2021. Try doing that with a Superliner at high platforms. |
|
|
| (1585689) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Sep 20 00:31:05 2021, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Sep 18 13:09:34 2021. And just what is the problem with making the cars both high and low platform the way the conventional rolling stock has been for years? |
|
|
| (1585693) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon Sep 20 01:03:26 2021, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday, posted by randyo on Mon Sep 20 00:31:05 2021. adds weight, raises cost I would surmise.That said, both as a 77yr old w/ knee issues and a 52 yr old goddaughter in a wheelchair, I am solidly for roll on/roll off. The critical issue is retrofitting all stations so that the less athletic passengers are accomodated. |
|
|
| (1585695) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Sep 20 01:17:20 2021, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday, posted by randyo on Mon Sep 20 00:31:05 2021. I don't know. Don't know why they didn't do that 22 years ago and I darn sure don't know why they didn't do it now. The "crashworthiness regulations" excuse only goes so far.I remember seeing the first-generation Acela at the last Hoboken Festival and it looked absurd with the high-platform-only doors, needing those temporary wooden steps they usually used for the PATH car displays. |
|
|
| (1585696) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Sep 20 01:20:08 2021, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon Sep 20 01:03:26 2021. How does it add weight?I've had knee problems myself, but I don't think of myself as you seem to do yourself. The critical issue is retrofitting the trains and/or building equipment into new trains so that the platforms are not an issue. You know, like Metra did. BTW, ever tried getting out of a Superliner at a high platform? |
|
|
| (1585719) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday |
|
|
Posted by Jace on Mon Sep 20 11:41:35 2021, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Sep 20 01:17:20 2021. The carbodies have four structural tubes that run the length of the car, end sheet to end sheet with 'buffers' on the ends to allow the carbodies to interface with each other in a collision. All of these members are on the corners of the shell, one pair is just above the doors, the other pair is just below the doors. These tubes are part of the crash worthiness structure, they keep the shells in shape in the event of a collision to a much greater extent than a standard center sill design. You would have to cut these members to add traps/wells for low level platform access. It's a compromise but one that's needed if you want to have added carbody structural performance. |
|
|
| (1585720) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday |
|
|
Posted by BILLBKLYN on Mon Sep 20 12:08:25 2021, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday, posted by Fred G on Sat Sep 18 09:44:27 2021. It's horrible |
|
|
| (1585721) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Sep 20 12:16:31 2021, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday, posted by Jace on Mon Sep 20 11:41:35 2021. And that's what makes the first-gen Acela twice the weight of other trainsets.FWICS, the crash-energy-management that was tested at the FRA's test tracks at Pueblo CO seems to mitigate whatever problems that were supposed to arise for high-speed operation. These were tested on former EMUs with empty weight of less than 100,000 lbs too. |
|
|
| (1585725) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday |
|
|
Posted by Jace on Mon Sep 20 12:44:52 2021, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Sep 20 12:16:31 2021. The Acela carbody design obviates the need for other structure such as heavy center sills; I'd like to see your analysis showing how much weight the tubes add compared to a more conventional center sill carbody design. The tubes give the shell a lot more structural integrity; the Acela carshells would perform a whole lot better than a conventional car if they got sideways as at Frankfort Junction. |
|
|
| (1585730) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Sep 20 13:45:04 2021, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday, posted by Jace on Mon Sep 20 12:44:52 2021. I'd like to see your analysis showing how much weight the tubes add compared to a more conventional center sill carbody designThe trainset weights are available online. No need for an exhaustive analysis (e.g. Acela first-gen total weight 1,246,000 lbs vs X2000 784,000 lbs; if the X2000 had two power cars with six passenger cars the weight would be 984,000 lbs, but the Acela is still 124 percent that weight—and take note that the X2000 reached 150 mph in tests with just one power car). the Acela carshells would perform a whole lot better than a conventional car if they got sideways as at Frankfort Junction We don't know that for sure, particularly if the active-tilt mechanism fails; and a heavier car has a lot more momentum at speed, so imagine a car in that situation sliding much further down the right of way into who knows where and/or who knows what. The crashworthiness regulations do not relate to the car shell as a whole anyway, but train end collisions. Ultimately, take note that the "Avelia Liberty" trains are replacing their forebears after a mere 21 years. The Amfleet I cars are well into their 46th year, by contrast, outlasting their motive power by three years for the oldest AEM-7s and 13 years for the newest AEM-7s, never mind the E60s. |
|
|
| (1585736) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday |
|
|
Posted by Jace on Mon Sep 20 14:17:43 2021, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Sep 20 13:45:04 2021. Overall weight is high no doubt but how is that weight distributed? Having been inside the power cars, I can tell you that they have a massive frame. I don't know the weight break-down either but my guess is that most of the added weight is in the power cars and that the trailers are actually pretty efficiently designed (i.e. relatively lightweight). Getting rid of the step wells surely helps keep their weight down. Conversely, adding wells will increase the weight.I know very well that the Acelas are not going to have a long service life, barely if even reaching their minimum design life, that there's little that can be done that is economically reasonable to cascade them down to a lower tier service or to a different corridor and that plenty of other equipment has or will outlast them. I also know that they weigh a lot. However, none of these are the reasons why Amtrak is replacing them so soon. The actual reason is not at all performance-based nor is it technical. It is almost purely commercial in nature. And note that I'm only presenting facts here, not opinions. |
|
|
| (1585744) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Sep 20 15:21:23 2021, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday, posted by Jace on Mon Sep 20 14:17:43 2021. Getting rid of the step wells surely helps keep their weight down. Conversely, adding wells will increase the weight.Then why are cars with steps and trapdoors lighter than these ones? Perhaps if the concern is crumple zones at the ends of cars, the doors should be moved to the center of the car. The actual reason is not at all performance-based nor is it technical. It is almost purely commercial in nature. WADR, I don't see how it's commercial. Looks more political to me. |
|
|
| (1585784) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday |
|
|
Posted by Jace on Mon Sep 20 21:03:52 2021, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Sep 20 15:21:23 2021. You misunderstood; I'm not comparing an Acela style car to a car with a standard center sill car. Acela style carshells are going to be heavier with a step well then without. With a well, you have to add structure to move the load from the outside of the car, around the well and then back to the side sill all in a very restricted space. Center doors will help but you still have to add structure. It's much, much easier, and lighter, to run a tube end to end.Politics of course played a role as with any other high dollar federally funded project but not to the extent that you might think. The commercial factors are what really led to the new Acelas. Two very important facts: at the time the order was being discussed, Amtrak was seeing high demand for certain Acela trains with some consistently running at or close to capacity. Remember, Acela is a 'high profit' operation for Amtrak. Secondly, the original trains were built by a Bombardier-Alstom joint-venture with each of the two companies responsible for different aspects of the design and different parts on the trains. This joint-venture did not go well for all involved and dissolved after the trains were built. Solving the problem (fact 1) should have been straight-forward had it not been for fact 2. |
|
|
