Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Novel concept: build train… then design it.
Jon 
@KOOLjock1 posted:Novel concept: build train… then design it.
Jon
Sadly Jon, that's an old concept, and not just with trains!
I worked with the French on an aerospace project some time back, it was a nightmare! Different company, but it seems like the same attitude.
@gunrunnerjohn posted:Sadly Jon, that's an old concept, and not just with trains!
I worked with the French on an aerospace project some time back, it was a nightmare! Different company, but it seems like the same attitude.
It everywhere today, let the public be the R&D team. While this is trains it goes to the we need the most advanced. When it’s public money it’s know ones money
One of the strengths of the American system is that failures and mistakes can be publicized. A part of the environment for getting right answers is ensuring there are reasonable consequences for wrong answers. I'm not sure this approach would go over well in China.
Well stated Norman.
One of the challenges with passenger rail in general is that there are no 'off the shelf' designs because there just isn't the volume of product being built to support that. The original Acela's had similar teething issues and have served respectable service lives. The new Acela sets are like very expensive sports cars. I suspect that all will be worked out and these new generation of train sets will serve 20 years until the next generation is ready to be designed and built.
It is easy to armchair quarterback this, but complex systems are just that, complex. The Acela trains whether 1st or 2nd generation have the same design challenge that isn't readily resolved; a right of way that largely built by the 1920's that was never intended for the speeds these trains can run at.
One of the reasons they are tested first at Pueblo and then in service is to find the kinds of problems these sets have exhibited and get them resolved before they enter revenue service.
The first heart transplants didn't work out too well, but you've got to start somewhere. Today, they are routine, 50-60 years later. Teething problems are part and parcel of anything difficult and new. High speed trains that can operate on our ancient rail system are probably an example of this, is my guess.
My thoughts wander to the superlative success and longevity of the GG1 in the context of technology development. It was not the first electric locomotive. How much of a step forward in technology and capability was it when it began commercial service? To what extent did it suffer teething pains?
@Norman R posted:My thoughts wander to the superlative success and longevity of the GG1 in the context of technology development. It was not the first electric locomotive. How much of a step forward in technology and capability was it when it began commercial service? To what extent did it suffer teething pains?
I look at the success of the GG1 as the result of some expensive failures of the PRR in the form of 92 P5s, 3 completed L6s, 29 L6 bodies that never were completed into locomotives, and the lone R1. None met expectations and put excessive lateral pressure on the track. The GG1 benefited from these experiences.
From a technology standpoint it was not much of a leap forward from any of the Baldwin-Westinghouse locomotives built in the late teens through the 1930's that used a quill drive. The Milwaukee Road EP-3s of 1919 had quill drives that were not nearly as reliable. The quill drive was of course much more refined 15 years later when GG1 4899 was built and tested thoroughly at Claymont prior to going into full production.
However the GG1 got there, it was near the top of the list for electric locomotives, what a long run they had!
Alstom market value plunged 22% today as they look into selling assets.
Never a good sign.
Gunny
@GG1 4877 posted:I look at the success of the GG1 as the result of some expensive failures of the PRR in the form of 92 P5s, 3 completed L6s, 29 L6 bodies that never were completed into locomotives, and the lone R1. None met expectations and put excessive lateral pressure on the track. The GG1 benefited from these experiences.
From a technology standpoint it was not much of a leap forward from any of the Baldwin-Westinghouse locomotives built in the late teens through the 1930's that used a quill drive. The Milwaukee Road EP-3s of 1919 had quill drives that were not nearly as reliable. The quill drive was of course much more refined 15 years later when GG1 4899 was built and tested thoroughly at Claymont prior to going into full production.
This makes a lot of sense. The quill drive is a great subject to focus on as an aspect of the GG1’s success.
The GG1 had 12 traction motors which powered the engine's six drive axles. It was the Quill Shaft Assembly that enabled the GG1 to transmit power from the electric motors to the mechanical drive wheels. Two electric motors per mechanical drive axle. That sounds like a complex electro-mechanical device that must withstand tremendous power transformation reliably over time. There is no escape. It takes engineering development to turn technology and complexity into operational effectiveness coupled with reliability. The GG1 demonstrated that in spades.
Jonathan highlights the P5s, L6s, and R1 as predecessors to the GG1. In retrospect this suggests that there was investment (actual discretionary money voluntarily spent) that accumulated into engineering development of the technologies that enabled the success of the GG1. No free lunch here. If you don’t invest in engineering development, you don’t get commercial viability. The dominating success of the GG1 is legend to anyone willing to take notice. But how many people are aware of or can talk about the role of the P5s, L6s and R1 in that success?
How much engineering development cash was invested in the latest Acela? Did the market encourage the kind of spending required to make the first unit surpass all expectations? Who paid for the P5s, L6s and R1? How satisfied were they with what they got for their money?
Lots of things are released to the public although they are still "not ready for prime time." The seller wants to get an income stream going as soon as possible, and releases the product for sale before it has its defects resolved, and uses customers to effectively beta test the product (while paying for it as if it has no flaws).
If I recall correctly, the GG1 started out with the PRR "borrowing" much of a New Haven electric locomotive's design including the wheel arrangement. Nothing like tweaking an already successful design to enhance your chances of success.
Before I posted I checked Wikipedia, and yes, the PRR actually did borrow an EP3 electric locomotive from the New Haven.
Why not build the trains we once had? They did the job just fine. New GG1's anybody?
Sounds like a place I work at. Build it, sell it and fix the problems later. Maybe.
On my way to York from the Philadelphia airport I saw the prototype/ test train version of the new Acela parked in the yard at 30th Street Station. I couldn’t get a photo as I was driving on the perilous Schuylkill Expressway. It’s a good looking streamlined train set. It was still there on our way back to the airport a week later.
@Traindiesel posted:On my way to York from the Philadelphia airport I saw the prototype/ test train version of the new Acela parked in the yard at 30th Street Station. I couldn’t get a photo as I was driving on the perilous Schuylkill Expressway. It’s a good looking streamlined train set. It was still there on our way back to the airport a week later.
I guess they couldn't get it to move. 
If I recall correctly, there are a few of the new Acelas near 30th Street Station - and now some are being stored at Olean, N.Y. One is visible in Google street view there, from Constitution Avenue.
David
@NKP Muncie posted:If I recall correctly, there are a few of the new Acelas near 30th Street Station - and now some are being stored at Olean, N.Y. One is visible in Google street view there, from Constitution Avenue.
Boy, if it's on Street View, it's been there awhile! 
@gunrunnerjohn posted:Boy, if it's on Street View, it's been there awhile!
It says September 2023.
A story in the Olean paper:
https://www.oleantimesherald.c...19-d367d4dc511b.html
David
That's a pretty "fresh" picture, normally they're a couple years old. 
As noted by @Traindiesel and @NKP Muncie, many Amtrak Avelia engines and cars are parked (collecting dust) just north of the Philadelphia Street station. They can clearly be viewed from any Northeast Corridor train passing through Philadelphia. The engines appear to be noticeably shorter than Acela.
Those of us who enjoy threads for which Amtrak is the topic extend our heartfelt thanks to all posters to this thread, for being nicely disciplined so far. This one has yet to be deleted, unlike so many before it.
Remember that the first sign of posts focused at the politics of Amtrak, instead of at Amtrak itself, will likely cause the thread to be removed by the moderators.
Well done. In fact, exceedingly well done considering it's a such a delicate topic.
Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming ...
Carry on.
Mike
@gunrunnerjohn posted:However the GG1 got there, it was near the top of the list for electric locomotives, what a long run they had!
I think John today the trouble is this in order to justify the high price we must build complex. Instead of keeping it simple building good rolling stock with a locomotive that can do high-speed. We must try to go Apollo again the real issue is we no longer have the brain power to do it not in the engineering field and not when it comes to government money Stupidity is in control >
@Mellow Hudson Mike posted:Those of us who enjoy threads for which Amtrak is the topic extend our heartfelt thanks to all posters to this thread, for being nicely disciplined so far. This one has yet to be deleted, unlike so many before it.
Remember that the first sign of posts focused at the politics of Amtrak, instead of at Amtrak itself, will likely cause the thread to be removed by the moderators.
Well done. In fact, exceedingly well done considering it's a such a delicate topic.
Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming ...
Carry on.
Mike
Agree! Leave politics out of it.
@gunrunnerjohn posted:I worked with the French on an aerospace project some time back, it was a nightmare!
So you're responsible for the Concorde fiasco? /s haha
@TheRambles posted:So you're responsible for the Concorde fiasco? /s haha
Nope, the French did that all on their own!
Europe has plenty of successful passenger locomotives. How hard can it be to adapt one or more to the US market?
Someone mentioned China above. They have actually leapfrogged us in public transportation. Maybe we could learn something there too.
@William Robbins 092218 posted:Europe has plenty of successful passenger locomotives. How hard can it be to adapt one or more to the US market?
My understanding is that this is the underlying problem. Alstom is having a hard time adjusting their European-based computer models to account for the NEC's poor infrastructure.
The locomotives should be fine but Amtrak wants to see a final computer model of the train on the NEC, and the NEC has track that is much bumpier than Alstom is used to in Europe, so their model needs adjusting that is apparently difficult. Again, that's just my understanding from what I've read.
@TheRambles posted:So you're responsible for the Concorde fiasco? /s haha
In fact, the Concorde wasn't a fiasco at all. Certain operational limitations (including the price of fuel) and environmental issues contributed to it not being an economic success, but it was considered a great engineering success. Incidentally, it was co-developed by the British and the French. Among other engineering breakthroughs, it was the first airliner to use fly-by-wire flight controls. It has been said that its lack of commercial success doesn't diminish its role as an icon of modern aviation and as a technological marvel, one which planemakers and aerospace start-ups still talk about replicating.
Some of the new Acela train sets next to 30th Street Station today, with CSX elevated line in the background.
David
Attachments
Images (1)
