Post high-speed rail

File: Shinkansen_Series0_R67_JNRcolor.jpg (524KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

524KB, 1200x900px

>>1007613
Amtrak is 50 years late.

>>1007613
How much will the new rolling stock speed up services though? I was under the impression that the infrastructure was the main cause for the less than high speeds.

>>1007613
>modular design
Isn't literally every train ever a modular design?

What are the advantages, if any, of active tilt over passive tilt?

>>1007674
Acela runs fixed-length trainsets. I'm not familiar enough with that equipment to say what the feasibility of adding or removing cars is, but I know that with the Talgo sets in the Northwest it takes about a day to add or remove a car. Maybe these news trains have made the process faster and easier.

>>1007672
It won't, maybe barely (I'm talking probably a few minutes difference between D.C. and NYC). And yes, the infrastructure is widely noted to be the main problem and Amtrak knows this. They've tried before to get a massive sum of money to completely redo it but congress threw it out. Maybe someday but probably not in our lifetimes.

>>1007689
None in this case considering the tracks on the NEC are too close to actually take advantage of tilting technology.

>>1007689
Active tilt starts tilting sooner, which gives a smoother ride.

>>1007613
>fra compliant
>buy america

>proven technology
yeah sure totally

>>1009103
it's not like Sumitomo is having problems with FRA compliance or anything, even using a Superliner-based car

>>1009068
Tilt doesn't affect smoothness of ride, regardless of whether it's active or passive.

>1009114
Good point, though not 100% accurate, as passive tilt (in the trains that have it) is built into the suspension system, and some of the newer active tilt systems do actively smooth the ride as well.

What I meant to say was active tilt gives a more comfortable ride. With passive tilt passengers often perceive a response delay.

So what? Are they gonna move the Acela trains to Keystone service or are they gonna use them as backups?

>>1010340
>The present Acela Express equipment will be replaced by new trainsets beginning in 2021, with all of the remaining equipment to retire by the end of 2022.

A 22 year life span seems kind of not good.

File: 1471090339634.png (1MB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1080x1080px

>upcoming ICE 4 slower than ICE 3 to save energy because muh enbiromnent
>can't even reach the speed limit on our expensive high speed rail routes anymore
Good grief, there really isn't a thing Merkel doesn't fuck up.

>>1007674
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobs_bogie

>>1010346
That's actually about the lifespan for a lot of passenger cars.

Acela ones have always had trouble since their introduction too.

>>1010444
Aren't the Amfleet cars quickly approaching 40 years old.

>>1007613
American HSR cannot be done.

>>1010353
In terms of efficiency, it's seemingly somewhat /worse/ than the ICE 3 (and if so, definitely less efficient than the Velaro D ICE) given that it's slower and heavier (per car) whilst being a monster for power consumption. ICE 4 is a bridge from IC rather than a real ICE though

>>1010565
yes, as are some of the Superliners

>>1010565
>>1010625
hell, Amtrak is still running some Metroliner cars that are coming up on 50 years

Looks nice but if ticket prices are anything like Acela than I'd probably never use it. Similarly as many agree ITT the infrastructure is the big problem, not the trainsets. I get they're trying to appear as modern and more Europe-like with proper trains but they've got to fix the underlying issues with the NEC.

>>1010626
>America's first attempt at HSR was so bad that they had to scrap the cars and use them as cabs.

>Amtrak
>Punctuality and comfort
You can't just run shiny new trains on old worn out tracks and expect things to go smoothly.

>>1011308
Trains are for freight, not passengers.

Is Amtrak responsible for both running trains and maintaining track?

>>1013917
Only on the rail they directly own themselves, which I believe is only like 300 or so miles in the NE corridor.

Otherwise all of the track they run on is owned by other corporations, mostly private freight carriers like CSX, NS, BNSF, and UP. As a result they don't have any control over track maintenance and also usually have lower priority in relation to freight if schedules conflict.

>>1013921
>usually have lower priority in relation to freight if schedules conflict

this part is just plain false

>>1013928
Then explain the 16+ hour delays on the Empire Builder and other routes?

>>1013932
Don't know about that bullshit, but on my company we never hold Amtrak for anything, and if we do, it's a big deal.

Amtrak is given priority over everything by law. I've sat for hours waiting on an Amtrak meet because of it.

People that act like companies stick Amtrak in the hole for hours at a time while they run trains around them left and right are fucking delusional since this never happens. /n/ is full of Dunning-Kruger retards like you that have no idea about how railroads are really run, but preach about them all day long.

Will regional rail ever get faster? I take it to philly and it fucks my shit up

Is there a service that tracks all trains in real time? Something like flightradar except for trains

>>1014001
What I'd heard was
>Amtrak gets priority over everything except HazMat
>companies will brand trains as HazMat even though they aren't
>get priority over Amtrak
>16hr delay

>>1015320
That's complete bullshit.

Key trains(oil trains and trains containing even one car placarded as poison inhalation hazard) are only suppossed to hold the main at meets when practicable and aren't suppossed to be left unattended without permission. Nothing about priority over Amtrak. In fact, unless it's an oil train, it's probably just a regular manifest train that has very little priority.

>>1013932
Busy lines. Passenger traffic almost always has priority, but priority doesn't mean shit if somewhere down the line a slight delay has cascaded into the rail equivalent of gridlock. Not much you can do when you come across tracks that are already in use and the freight traffic is delayed in clearing them.

Last time I was on the Zephyr. we were delayed 5 hours due to two separate instances of UP trains breaking down ahead of use (seriously, fuck UP).

>>1007689
Active means you don't have to redo the track. Optimum tilt varies with speed, so if you have high speed and conventional trains on the same infrastructure you pretty much need some active tilt on the faster trains.
Other than that there are only downsides to active tilt and the impossible ideal would be perfectly tailored rail. If you tilt the rail bedding you cancel the sideways force between the train and track, and track and bedding. Active tilt only shifts centre of gravity and cabin level to prevent the train keeling over and to maintain passenger comfort. The huge non-downward forces of the rails and bogies are still there.

Real world implementations are hybrids with some track tilt, and minor active correction based on speed.

>>1007613
Why they get this new train with the max speed far over track limit?

Why JR East stop building double deck shinkansen?

>>1007613
England needs to roll out an retro APT-themed service if they ever get proper high speed rail that's not the Eurostar.

The APT was sexy as hell.

File: ElectrolinerII.jpg (112KB, 1024x848px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 1024x848px

1940s style.

So when Amtrak took over in 1971, did railroads like the CB&Q, Illinois Central and Milwaukee Road actively scrap their signaling systems? Why are trains on those lines slower now than in the 1930s?

>>1018036
Can't scrap signal systems without getting permission from the FRA. You have to do a big petition and everything and prove that it won't detract from safety, so you're pretty much stuck with it once you build it.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/part-235
I'm looking for the old version now to see when the rule about having cab signals on train speeds in excess of 79 mph.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/236.0

>>1018048
I know for a fact that the Milwaukee Road had cab-signaling prior to 1971, yet both the Empire Builder and Hiawatha are currently limited to 79mph.

>>1018037
>>1018029
So for 79mph+ trains, special signalling system is required yet that signalling system does not help HSR?

>>1018052
Cab signalling never got widespread use outside of the PRR.

I'd assume that most railroads dismantled it since it was only ever really done out of compulsion from the ICC.

>The Signal Inspection Law of 1920 amended a 1910 act. With this amendment, on June 13, 1922, the ICC issued an order requiring 49 railroads to install by January 1, 1925, over one full passenger division, systems for form of automatic train control.

File: 20160923214721.jpg (63KB, 734x420px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 734x420px

RIP we get our first high speed train a while ago and it look lile this

>>1010614
But aren't they going to replace ICE 1, ICE 2, and later ICE 3?

>>1017081
I like it.

File: 20th-Century-Limited3.jpg (133KB, 610x460px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 610x460px

>>1007613

Except it looks like another fucking clone of what Europe and Japan already have.

America was the land of the Streamliner 70 years ago.

Can't they build a high speed train that pays homage to the days of the 20th Century Limited, the Hiawatha, Powhatan Arrow, Coast Daylight instead of this cookie cutter foreign shit? They're already pouring billions of dollars into it, why not invest a few extra million into designing a different frame?

>>1024647
>>1024776

>>1024647
Aerodynamic

>>1020605
>our
Fuck me.
By Amtrak standards the X2/X2000 on KCR before was good high speed train. The Regional Express that could have been.

>>1017017
Slow.
Heavy.
Doesn't help the section they share is congested. More frequent equally fast trains is better even on Joetsu Shinkansen for itself and others.

>>1010353
Merkel has literally nothing to do with ICE you chucklefuck. DB is a private company now, which was one of the worst decisions in Germany's transportation history. ICEs' top speed can't save it from running late all the time everywhere anyway, and then it starts clogging up regional transport. Every time I take a 25 minute journey by RE, it gets delayed because some fucking IC or ICE has to take over and I end up having to wait 15 minutes for the goddamn stadtbahn when I'm there. Fuck ICEs. Fuck ICs. Fuck HKX and everything that messes up our local transit and is only designed for monetary gain.

>>1013902
You don't live in the Northeast, do you son?

>>1010353
>ICE 4 is aimed for eurocity services
>can't reach the minimum cruising speed of all french/belgian HSL

>somehow wants to replace all other ICEs

it's like they abandonned their plan to have lines going to london or anywhere west of them. GG DB

>>1027879
>french/belgian HSL
As it only runs on 15 kV, that wouldn't be their area of operation.
I don't see why it should replace all ICEs anyway, as new ICE3/Velaros, for 25 kV and Benelux DC lines, were ordered just now.

>>1027891
http://de.reuters.com/article/deutschland-bahn-siemens-zf-idDEBEE73F03420110416
>Als letztes könnten im Rahmen des Vertrags die neueren ICE-3 von 80 sogenannten ICx verdrängt werden.

File: cimg8264nnnnq7ohb.jpg (287KB, 1111x814px) Image search: [Google]

287KB, 1111x814px

>>1027905
I saw that article, wikipedia also cites it as a source.
But it is from 2011, at that point it was also still supposed to have 25 kV for dutch lines and replacing every 300 km/h train just seems retarded for several reasons.

I also wonder what they plan to do with the diesel-IC lines?
Abandon them all?
Keep the old IC cars running forever?
Use the doubledeck-""""IC"""" cars that then would be limited to 160 even when electric?
Or go full meme and pull ICE4s with diesel engines?

>>1027918

A few of the ICE-TD trains are rented to DSB (Denmark) because of our last-century non-electrified tracks. Ironically, these are mainly used on the CPH-HH and Aarhus-HH lines.

>>1017016
There's still sections of track in the NEC that are straight enough that speed is limited more by the (current) equipment than the track geometry.

>>1027926
That's not true. The Acelas have always been capable of much higher speeds than track limits. They spent quite a bit of effort upgrading catenary to test out 165 MPH in New Jersey, and Rhode Island is still limited to 150 MPH regardless. The problem is that their obscene weight wears down the track and consumes more power at high speeds than a comparable European trainset would.