Is diesel rail that bad? When people 'brag' about how good there countries rail network is, quite often they quote the percentage that the network is electrified...

Although I can see for true HSR you need electric trains for 180-200Mph running...

...Does it really matter of your normal commuter 75-100Mph and regular intercity trains 100-130Mph...are diesel?

People quite often just think that if a rail network is mainly diesel, its backwards, slow, lacking in investment and dirty...

England does have a mainly diesel rail network, and sometimes, yes, you get trains like this...

http://www.britainsrailway.co.uk/d/1302-4/Class+142+changing+direction+at+Salford+Crescent.jpg

But most of the time its not all bad...all of the main lines run 125Mph tilting trains...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ca/Virgin_Voyager_221yyy_passing_Filton_Abbey_Wood_04.jpg/800px-Virgin_Voyager_221yyy_passing_Filton_Abbey_Wood_04.jpg

Do you shudder at the thought of diesel trains?

I don't know how efficient Diesel trains are, I know however, that electric trains are better when it comes to acceleration (especially also at low speeds), furthermore they are not limited by fuel they have to carry around with them.

this is obviously very complex

in switzerland the terrain pretty much demanded 100 % electrification
in france electricity is generated from nuclear power which is a hell of a lot cheaper (and makes them more independent)
it is more economical to reduce pollution at a huge factory rather than on every single trainset

and for me, at least in case of commuter rail, it boils down to acceleration

a diesel train has to carry enormous weight with it, wherease say a stadler flirt can accelerate like a rocket, which is pretty important when it comes to average speed (not top speed!) on lines where these trains have to stop every 3-5 kms (most s-bahn and commuter lines in the whole of europe)

Is diesel rail that bad? When people 'brag' about how good there countries rail network is, quite often they quote the percentage that the network is electrified...
Diesel is not bad per se. It's just a waste of energy on frequently used railway lines.

Although I can see for true HSR you need electric trains for 180-200Mph running...

...Does it really matter of your normal commuter 75-100Mph and regular intercity trains 100-130Mph...are diesel?
Yes, it does matter. Electric powered trains are much cheaper to operate. Not only doesn't have an EMU to carry its energy. It also returns part of its kinetic energy back into the power system when slowing down. Furthermore has an electric engine a much greater efficiency factor than a Diesel engine.

EMUs are lighter.
-> greater acceleration
-> less attrition on the rails

People quite often just think that if a rail network is mainly diesel, its backwards, slow, lacking in investment and dirty...

England does have a mainly diesel rail network...
British trains look good. The system overall, however, is not so good. It is simply way behind railway networks on the continent in terms of efficiency and capacity.

With an expected rise in energy costs the advantage of electric powered trains will become even greater in the future. The quicker Britain electrifies the better it is for the whole country.

Also, electric trains last longer than diesel (less moving parts). EMUs compared to their DMU counterparts are smoother (no underfloor engines) and thus provide superior passenger comfort, in addition to superior performance mentioned above.

Diesels are fine for lightly trafficked secondary lines that don't warrant the high infrastructure costs of electrification.

in switzerland the terrain pretty much demanded 100 % electrification

Additionally to this reason there are two major reasons why Switzerland has 100% electrified tracks.
- No fossil resources (coal/oil) within the country.
- Water power. (Water is the only major natural recource of Switzerland and all of the electricity used by trains is generated by water power.)

this is obviously very complex

in switzerland the terrain pretty much demanded 100 % electrification
in france electricity is generated from nuclear power which is a hell of a lot cheaper (and makes them more independent)
it is more economical to reduce pollution at a huge factory rather than on every single trainset

and for me, at least in case of commuter rail, it boils down to acceleration

a diesel train has to carry enormous weight with it, wherease say a stadler flirt can accelerate like a rocket, which is pretty important when it comes to average speed (not top speed!) on lines where these trains have to stop every 3-5 kms (most s-bahn and commuter lines in the whole of europe)

I agree with all of that.

From a more aesthetic point of view: I prefer Diesel trains because the tracks don't come with nasty overhead wiring that ruins the landscape. In Holland we call that sort of thing horizon pollution.

British trains look good. The system overall, however, is not so good. It is simply way behind railway networks on the continent in terms of efficiency and capacity.

Some networks on the continent, I wouldn't say that the british network is way behind Romania, Portugal or Poland.

In fact I think that in terms of capacity we are behind France and Germany, similar to Italy but carry more passenger/kms than any other network in Europe.

When I get my train in the morning I just love it when I get on a carriage where the underfloor engine is turned off, I can sleep then.

Other days I'm sat right above the engine, vibrating and loud.

Diesel is shite.

I agree with all of that.

From a more aesthetic point of view: I prefer Diesel trains because the tracks don't come with nasty overhead wiring that ruins the landscape. In Holland we call that sort of thing horizon pollution.

There is a simple solution for that: Use a life rail!

nasty overhead wiring

well, as it is expected, the swiss make a good job of cleaning that up too
they always use aluminium and/or stainless steel which looks very modern and clean
http://www.railpictures.net/images/d1/7/7/3/3773.1253474088.jpg

In terms of efficiency, electrified tracks beats diesel hands down because diesel needs to carry it's own energy source(Diesel fuel) while electrified trains does not meaning they are lighter not needing to carry the extra mass.

In Holland we call that sort of thing horizon pollution.

From a Swiss point of view there isn't much landscape to see in Holland anyway ;) :runaway:

I never had a problem with them honestly. Now the wires of the trams and trolley-buses are another story.

From a Swiss point of view there isn't much landscape to see in Holland anyway ;) :runaway:

I would argue that the complete lack of anything resembling hills makes power cables and railway tracks all the more obvious:

http://basdekker.eu/weblog/media/p4217041-wlg-tulpen-hoogspanningsmasten.jpg

The single greatest aspect of Dutch landscape is the surreal feeling of emptiness and unlimited views. If you put up a few electricity pylons or construct electrified railways, you have to be extremely careful not to rape the whole area.

That's why the Dutch government has been investing heavily in underground electricity cables. I suspect the railways will face some sort of aesthetical make-over within the next few decades as well.

I never had a problem with them honestly. Now the wires of the trams and trolley-buses are another story.

I actually disagree completely. I think the wires of trams add a cosmopolitan feel to the average city streetview whereas railways disturb open landscape.

I don't like those huge overland power cables either, just look at the Linthebene it's crazy.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/50/138594563_273b93f9a8.jpg

Just one example:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Matterhorn_and_Gornergratbahn.jpg
This is one of the most famous motives in Switzerland (including the train). I don't see where the overhead wires look that bad.

not to mention that in switzerland it would be impossible to use a third rail because of the snow (i think)

The pictures of overhead cables in Switzerland just illustrate that, although you can make this system look less bad, you can never actually make it look good. Kudos to the Swiss for trying, of course. But this appears to be an unsolvable issue (where third rail isn't an option).

i disagree

on this basis you could say that the trackbad should be made of grass..because thats more natural

but thats not how things work

"thats not how things work"??

There are degrees, aren't there? Nobody is saying the railway track should be made of wood and the trains of sheepskin. But overhead wiring in open farmland is probably more intrusive than overhead wiring in an urban environment to the average person. It just stands out more.

The pictures of overhead cables in Switzerland just illustrate that, although you can make this system look less bad, you can never actually make it look good. Kudos to the Swiss for trying, of course. But this appears to be an unsolvable issue (where third rail isn't an option).

It is just Your personal and a bit useless opinion. I love how electrified railways look like. Most of people I know prefer electrical transport too because of acceleration. Do not make your opinion like the only truth.

Swiss railways are amazing and fit in landscape greatly.
:cheers:

If my opinion is irrelevant, then so is yours.

I live in a state where its half and half the busiest lines are Electric and semi busiest are Diesel for now , soon will be electric in 10 years after some projects are completed. New Jersey is a unique system and very big , every large city in NJ is served by Rail and some cities have Light Rail :)

our Old EMU
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/NJ_Transit_ABB_ALP-44M_4430.jpg

Our New EMU (i know its big and i don't care what you think about America Trainsets and Locos)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3322/3641203068_86864947d9_o.jpg


Old DMU

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/NJ_Transit_GP40PH-2B_4216_waits_to_pull_Train_4622.jpg

New DMU

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/NJT_PL42AC.jpg

Old Trainsets

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/NJTR_Bombardier_5416.jpg

New Trainsets, *note NJT & Metro North share trainsets on some routes in NJ

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/MTA_Metro_North_6710_on_New_Jersey_Transit_train_1728.jpg

New Bi-Level sets

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/NJ_Transit_Multilevel_7014_on_Train_6651.jpg

Gladstone line Trainsets

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/NJ_Transit_Arrow_III_MU_1327.jpg

~Corey

All Pictures are gathered form Wikipedia except one Flickr account

From a Swiss point of view there isn't much landscape to see in the Netherlands anyway


That's because the average Swiss has never seen a horizon. Those ugly mountains obstruct your views, like a prison. ;) :runaway:

I love double decker US train sets.

If my opinion is irrelevant, then so is yours.

It is true ;)
It is ugly or not is only our opinion, it is not like commie blocks where 70% or more think they are ugly :D

furthermore, the new EMUs allow for feeding back the energy from braking into the system and all the way to another EMU that is accelerating at the exact same time

I have no problem with DMU, or diesel locomotives. In fact, NJ transit has a very nice collection of locomotives ranging from 40 year old veterans to brand new tier 3 4 stroke beasties that can accelerate all most as fast as an EMU.

The support structure of the overhead lines of the HBLR are actually kinda nice, they make them look like lamp posts when running on the street, then on viaduct they are round tube columns.

I really don't have a problem with overhead lines for train power, but i think transmission lines could be put underground. Problem is people want big huge cars and smooth roads, not reliable ascetically neutral power grid. Priorities are a bit backwards here, but hey at least W is out of office. :)

- A

"thats not how things work"??

There are degrees, aren't there? Nobody is saying the railway track should be made of wood and the trains of sheepskin. But overhead wiring in open farmland is probably more intrusive than overhead wiring in an urban environment to the average person. It just stands out more.

In a lot of historical city centers overhead wires are found extremely intrusive while some high trees can easily hide overhead wires in an open environment.

(Off course, it's all very subjective)

I live in a state where its half and half the busiest lines are Electric and semi busiest are Diesel for now , soon will be electric in 10 years after some projects are completed. New Jersey is a unique system and very big , every large city in NJ is served by Rail and some cities have Light Rail :)

our Old EMU
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/NJ_Transit_ABB_ALP-44M_4430.jpg

Our New EMU (i know its big and i don't care what you think about America Trainsets and Locos)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3322/3641203068_86864947d9_o.jpg


Old DMU

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/NJ_Transit_GP40PH-2B_4216_waits_to_pull_Train_4622.jpg

New DMU

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/NJT_PL42AC.jpg

Old Trainsets

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/NJTR_Bombardier_5416.jpg

New Trainsets, *note NJT & Metro North share trainsets on some routes in NJ

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/MTA_Metro_North_6710_on_New_Jersey_Transit_train_1728.jpg

New Bi-Level sets

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/NJ_Transit_Multilevel_7014_on_Train_6651.jpg

Gladstone line Trainsets

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/NJ_Transit_Arrow_III_MU_1327.jpg

~Corey

All Pictures are gathered form Wikipedia except one Flickr account

The only DMU in use in New Jersey is the RiverLINE light rail DMU. The rest are locomotives or EMU. HBLR and NCS have EMU light rail. Arrow 3 are EMU main line heavy rail. The "bi-levels" are multi-level vehicle or MLV. Bilevels are a different type of railcar. We don't have trainsets in the united states aside from the acela, everything else is individual coaches. Also, not all big cities are served by rail, in fact several medium and large cities in NJ are totally without rail transportation since private carriers such as the CRRNJ shut down back in the 70's. NJ used to have more pax track miles per person than any state, it's about 1/13th of what it used to be, thankfully NJT is trying to restore as much of the old service as possible.

- A

Is diesel rail that bad? When people 'brag' about how good there countries rail network is, quite often they quote the percentage that the network is electrified...

Although I can see for true HSR you need electric trains for 180-200Mph running...

...Does it really matter of your normal commuter 75-100Mph and regular intercity trains 100-130Mph...are diesel?

People quite often just think that if a rail network is mainly diesel, its backwards, slow, lacking in investment and dirty...[/B][/I]

Virtually all transportation in the US is dependent upon petroleum, of which the US imports two thirds. Rail electrification is an off the shelf technology which does not suffer when something happens in the Middle East, that would seem to be it's major advantage.

There is a simple solution for that: Use a life rail!

Here in the UK. pretty much most of the south east and London area uses 3rd rail. And also some of the Liverpool lines. The main issue seems to be the top speed. The fastest 3rd rail train is the Class 442 (105Mph)

http://www.therailwaycentre.com/NewSite%20POD%202007/POD24_01_07.jpg

In addition to whay everyone else already said, I must add that rail
technology has evolved quite fast those last years, so that if a given
level of service was requiring electric traction ten years ago, it is not
necessarily the case anymore now. We now produce DMUs with such
a level of comfort and performance that it can perfectly do what EMUs
did 10 years ago. So it's not an all black-and-white situation.

Also, it is certainly a matter of habits too. European manufacturing
tends to produce very good electric traction rolling stock, but is
very poor when it comes to build reliable diesel locs. As an example,
Iranian railways still operate the diesel locs that they got from the
US in the sixties, because they perform better than the Prima locs
they got from France 5 years ago... So we tend to electrify a lot
because we pretend that diesel is unreliable. But look at the new
operators, they do not have the same relationship with the rail
industry that national operators still have, so they grew wiser and
buy class 66 engines - US design - and they don't suffer unreliability
problems.

On the other hand, when it comes to electric traction, even mother
america buys from Europe, despite their "buy american" laws... The
AEM-7s that operate Amtrak trains on the NEC are based on a
swedish design, and the new NJT electric locs whose pictures
have been posted here are also pure European technology. Same
for the Acela trainsets. The last electric loc that was designed
entirely in the US was the EE60 and it has been a complete failure.
It's therefore no real surprise to hear the US railway managers
say that electrification is inherently inefficient...

We had some really neat DMU in the us for about 30 years.

Budd company RDC:
http://www.lnacrr.com/RDC%201%209801%20Pic%201%20Orig.JPG

Budd company SPV2000:
http://www.capecodrails.com/mvrs/mvrs014.jpg

The SPV2000 was not nearly as successful or reliable as the RDC, however many of both types were in use up to the mid 80's.

- A

Just one example:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Matterhorn_and_Gornergratbahn.jpg
This is one of the most famous motives in Switzerland (including the train). I don't see where the overhead wires look that bad.

It's worth noting that the Gornergratbahn uses 3-phase current instead of the usual single-phase setup. That is, it has two separate live wires (current 120 degrees out of phase) for each track (with the rails acting as the ground). And it still manages to look lean and graceful.

It's worth noting that the Gornergratbahn uses 3-phase current instead of the usual single-phase setup. That is, it has two separate live wires (current 120 degrees out of phase) for each track (with the rails acting as the ground). And it still manages to look lean and graceful.

For the rails to be ground they need return cables. There are too many variations & inconstancies in the rail not to mention they are usually set on insulators to allow free movement on the tie/sleeper. Are there any photos of the return cables??

- A

For the rails to be ground they need return cables. There are too many variations & inconstancies in the rail not to mention they are usually set on insulators to allow free movement on the tie/sleeper. Are there any photos of the return cables??

- A

I think you might be confusing the properties of the ground rail with that of the caternary or live third rail. While some subway systems use a separate, insulated "fourth" rail for the ground, none of the systems shown here do. I do not see any other "cables" or "insulators" along the tracks.

For three-phase systems, there are two hot wires and one neutral wire (in this case, the rails).

Is diesel rail that bad? When people 'brag' about how good there countries rail network is, quite often they quote the percentage that the network is electrified...

Although I can see for true HSR you need electric trains for 180-200Mph running...

...Does it really matter of your normal commuter 75-100Mph and regular intercity trains 100-130Mph...are diesel?

People quite often just think that if a rail network is mainly diesel, its backwards, slow, lacking in investment and dirty...

England does have a mainly diesel rail network, and sometimes, yes, you get trains like this...

http://www.britainsrailway.co.uk/d/1302-4/Class+142+changing+direction+at+Salford+Crescent.jpg

But most of the time its not all bad...all of the main lines run 125Mph tilting trains...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ca/Virgin_Voyager_221yyy_passing_Filton_Abbey_Wood_04.jpg/800px-Virgin_Voyager_221yyy_passing_Filton_Abbey_Wood_04.jpg

Do you shudder at the thought of diesel trains?

I "once" rode on those pieces of pure cr*p that they call Voyagers over there ... I swore to myself that I would NEVER AGAIN comit such foolishness act!!!!!!



There is no "peace" in traveling at 125mph inside a industrial strenght food/cake bakery/mixer (or whatever extremely depreciative name you wish to call those things). :lol:

The HST with their top'n'tail configuration are "sufferable" ... the one'engin'per'coach newer trains are pure cr*p in terms of passenger confort (specially the excessive noise levels and trepidation).


Most HST nowadays is electrified precisely because it saves in micromanagement of the infraestructure and rolingstock.

Some networks on the continent, I wouldn't say that the british network is way behind Romania, Portugal or Poland.

In fact I think that in terms of capacity we are behind France and Germany, similar to Italy but carry more passenger/kms than any other network in Europe.

:dunno:


Define your criteria please ??? :bash:

i hate diesel trains, they are dirty and bad for the environment, in highbury and islinglon station (london) sometimes i see these diesel cargo trains pass by and they belch a lot of black smoke, and the platform stinks. electric trains are the best

poshbakerloo, don't feel bad about British rail. Just think about America, and you won't feel bad anymore.

But your point is well-made. From an engineering perspective, what counts in achieving high speed is essentially the power-to-weight ratio, which is generally much higher for electric locomotives than diesel locomotives.

However, it is still possible to design trains running on non-electrified rail lines that can achieve high speed. The use of turbocharged 2-stroke diesels, and especially modern gas turbines, provides a very high power output, perhaps operable in the 140-180 mph range. It is unfortunate that most 2-strokes are designed for high torque rather than high speed. Combined with batteries and regenerative braking, you can attach more power cars and/or motors in the consist, achieving even higher power density.

However, it is still possible to design trains running on non-electrified rail lines that can achieve high speed. The use of turbocharged 2-stroke diesels, and especially modern gas turbines, provides a very high power output, perhaps operable in the 140-180 mph range. It is unfortunate that most 2-strokes are designed for high torque rather than high speed. Combined with batteries and regenerative braking, you can attach more power cars and/or motors in the consist, achieving even higher power density.

but it will never reach the electric trains because it would still have to carry a lot more weight

if you make some sort of a hybrid diesel train thats even worse, just imagine the weight of those batteries

not to mention the fact that all of those advantages already exist with EMUs and a remote power source

Diesel struggling in Kerala, India:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6fPfhWS0K8

Diesels in Pelopponesos, Greece:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hklZn1_xw9E&feature=related

I loved that train. I'm going to miss it when it's gone.

I seem to have messed up the first link to the Pelopponesos train:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29dr4yIOVn4&feature=related

Budd company SPV2000:
http://www.capecodrails.com/mvrs/mvrs014.jpg

The SPV2000 was not nearly as successful or reliable as the RDC, however many of both types were in use up to the mid 80's.

- A

So that's where the Amcan came from. Interesting.

not to mention that in switzerland it would be impossible to use a third rail because of the snow (i think)
No, surprisingly the snow is not an issue. 2 mountain narrow gauge railways in France use a live rail: le Train Jaune de Cerdagne (Cerdagne Yellow Train), near the spanish border, and the Chamonix (France)-Martigny (Switzerland) line. On this line the live rail is only used on the french side though.
A main standard gauge railway in the french Alps mountains, the Maurienne line, also used to have a live rail until the 70'.

Train jaune from http://www.sunfrance.com:
http://www.sunfrance.com/var/crtlr/storage/images/decouvrir/destinations/montagne/activites_de_montagne/le_train_jaune_de_cerdagne/41516-11-fre-FR/le_train_jaune_de_cerdagne_illustration.jpg

Mot of the railways in Greece use diesel locos.

And I am not complaining. They provide quide adequate service to railways.

Of course everything will soon change and most traffic will be fulfiled by electric ones, and this is already happening on many destinations.

So that's where the Amcan came from. Interesting.

As far as I know, it's the other way around, mate... The SPV is a
(rather unsuccessful, to say the least) attempt to build a motorcoach
out of an amfleet car, not te opposite. The original amfleet car design
was derived from the Metroliners, which were fast EMUs used on the
electrified part of the north-east corridor. This is where this kind of
round-shape section was born.

No, surprisingly the snow is not an issue. 2 mountain narrow gauge railways in France use a live rail: le Train Jaune de Cerdagne (Cerdagne Yellow Train), near the spanish border, and the Chamonix (France)-Martigny (Switzerland) line. On this line the live rail is only used on the french side though.
A main standard gauge railway in the french Alps mountains, the Maurienne line, also used to have a live rail until the 70'.

And this remains so only because the french do not want to allocate the
money to replace this anachronic third rail with a catenary. But believe
me, there are problems with it in winter, more than enough. And if they
replaced it on the Maurienne line (which sees most of the international
traffic between France and Italy), it was not without reason. Before its
conversion, the reliability of this line in winter was a catastrophy.

^^ There are astonishingly still a lot of oddities inside the french network.

3rd rail , odd signaling , near the alps there are still a lot of fun things to discover. :cheers:

poshbakerloo, don't feel bad about British rail. Just think about America, and you won't feel bad anymore.

But your point is well-made. From an engineering perspective, what counts in achieving high speed is essentially the power-to-weight ratio, which is generally much higher for electric locomotives than diesel locomotives.

However, it is still possible to design trains running on non-electrified rail lines that can achieve high speed. The use of turbocharged 2-stroke diesels, and especially modern gas turbines, provides a very high power output, perhaps operable in the 140-180 mph range. It is unfortunate that most 2-strokes are designed for high torque rather than high speed. Combined with batteries and regenerative braking, you can attach more power cars and/or motors in the consist, achieving even higher power density.


No ... in this particular subject we can easily say that even the USA is AHEAD of the UK.

There are more people served by HSR there ... this of course acording to some naysayers the HSR speed is always 1mph over wichever speed is attainable in the UK... isn't it so?. :lol:

Diesels and Gas turbine are OK ... but only if you are in the process of implementing a small frequencies network (say 1tph each direction) ... nothing in the grand scale of the british network would assume the "backward inability" to implement nationwide electrification there ... that and ATC/ATP/whatever. :ohno:

As far as I know, it's the other way around, mate... The SPV is a
(rather unsuccessful, to say the least) attempt to build a motorcoach
out of an amfleet car, not te opposite. The original amfleet car design
was derived from the Metroliners, which were fast EMUs used on the
electrified part of the north-east corridor. This is where this kind of
round-shape section was born.

Yeah, I looked this up. The cars have had such an odd history :lol:. I guess the SPVs were converted back. So (if they are still in use) if you are riding in an Amfleet you may actually be in one of these old SPVs.

our suburban rail network in the city of Adelaide, Australia has been run by diesel trains since the 1920's and DMU's since the 1950's. Our existing diesel fleet of trains and most lines on our network will be converted to electric in 2 years.

We are the last Australian City with a passenger rail system to be running diesel trains, in addition to that our rail infrastructure is quite poor with uninviting suburban stations and worn out track. With the conversion to electric is a complete upgrade to the track, stations and a lot of new EMU's.

DMU's in operation since 1980:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/14/2000_railcar.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/AdelaideRail_2.jpg

As far as I know, it's the other way around, mate... The SPV is a
(rather unsuccessful, to say the least) attempt to build a motorcoach
out of an amfleet car, not te opposite. The original amfleet car design
was derived from the Metroliners, which were fast EMUs used on the
electrified part of the north-east corridor. This is where this kind of
round-shape section was born.

Correct, the SPV2000 were (slightly lower speed) diesel iterations of the Metroliner, and where the Amfleet design originated. The RDC was a more successful design because it was never meant to be high speed, and could fit many markets, you could run a train of one unit up to 14 units, and the RDC 3 and 4 could go as many as you wanted due to brake upgrades (at least this is what i've read).

- A

Yeah, I looked this up. The cars have had such an odd history :lol:. I guess the SPVs were converted back. So (if they are still in use) if you are riding in an Amfleet you may actually be in one of these old SPVs.

They were never amfleets to begin with. The ones in that photo are from the Shore Line East service, i believe they are at the new haven storage yard with some out of service amfleets probably needing repairs. There are 2 currently at Hudson Yard along the northeast corridor between newark penn station and secacus junction in NJ. They were metro north, but i'm not sure what they are doing there, they've been there a while.

- A

They were never amfleets to begin with. The ones in that photo are from the Shore Line East service, i believe they are at the new haven storage yard with some out of service amfleets probably needing repairs. There are 2 currently at Hudson Yard along the northeast corridor between newark penn station and secacus junction in NJ. They were metro north, but i'm not sure what they are doing there, they've been there a while.

- A

Oh, I was under the impression that Amtrak had acquired them. So are the Metro North ones just regular locomotive-pulled cars now?

Also, do you know if this one still exists?
http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/spv2000a.jpg

No, they have been retired.

- A

All of our railways in Western Canada are diesel. There used to be an electrified track in BC called the "Tumbler Ridge Subdivision" that was ~130 km and was used for about 20 years...but demand for transporting stuff in that area dwindled.
The cost to electrify the railways through here would be astronomical due to the distances.

furthermore, the new EMUs allow for feeding back the energy from braking into the system and all the way to another EMU that is accelerating at the exact same time

A better option would be a hybrid engine. Use the braking to power electric motors for initial acceleration. That'd solve the slow acceleration problem of diesel locomotives.

Ok, I was sitting at a light and a guy pulled up next to me. He actually asked me if my lovely bike was a diesel. I answered him no obviously and asked him why. He said the engine was knocking like a diesel. Luckily the light turned green and the conversation was over. It did get me thinking though. The bike does knock quite a bit and my dealer told me that all k1200rss sounded like this. Here are a couple thought I had, someone please tell me if I am out of my mind or could these things help. 1 - new air filter, letting the engine breathe better, 2 - new higher efficient muffler, 3 - loose engine mounts?, 4 - synthetic oil only have 13k miles...or any other suggestions.

Thanks

Ted

A better option would be a hybrid engine. Use the braking to power electric motors for initial acceleration. That'd solve the slow acceleration problem of diesel locomotives.

hybrid technology is a waste of time and effort everywhere, because you STILL have to carry the weight of the fuel AND now youve added more weight because of the additional engine(s) and batteries

and all that added weight spoils the efficiency and the acceleration

A better option would be a hybrid engine. Use the braking to power electric motors for initial acceleration. That'd solve the slow acceleration problem of diesel locomotives.

Diesel electric engines are pretty much "hybrid". They are quite common but heavier if am not mistaken though.

hybrid technology is a waste of time and effort everywhere, because you STILL have to carry the weight of the fuel AND now youve added more weight because of the additional engine(s) and batteries

and all that added weight spoils the efficiency and the acceleration

It's better than a diesel engine by itself. Suppose a train has one locomotive, and 10 coaches. The coaches are non-powered. Thus, even when accounting for the weight of the batteries in a separate battery-powered locomotive, the power density and energy density both increase for the entire train.

Fuel is also saved at the same time, because on each acceleration both power sources are at work, but each time it brakes, all of the energy goes into the batteries. Provided that there are enough batteries, the cycle lifetime will be acceptable. Actually, you don't even have to use Li-ion, NiMH suffices in one of the designs. It saves money in the long-term. However, business plans are usually very short-term. This is why few diesel hybrids or battery-electrics exist.

A fully electrified line is superior in power density, no doubt, but the longer the line, the more cost for installation of overhead catenaries. Thus, there is probably a break-even point.

Diesel electric engines are pretty much "hybrid". They are quite common but heavier if am not mistaken though.

True. Most of them are hybrid, but not regenerative.

Yeah, I looked this up. The cars have had such an odd history :lol:. I guess the SPVs were converted back. So (if they are still in use) if you are riding in an Amfleet you may actually be in one of these old SPVs.

It was not a conversion... May be I did not express myself too well. The
design of the amfleet car/metroliner has been used to build the SPV
motorcoach but they have been built anew. I wonder if this picture is
recent, I thaught that the SPVs had been scratched.

On the other end, before the SPV you had the RDC, a much more successful
design, which dates back almost from end of WW2. Those ones have indeed
been used as hauled coaches at the end of their life. I remember whole trains
of RDCs hauled by one loc, F40PH or something like that, on suburban lines
out of Boston North Station, with the RDC engines idling to produce power
for the A/C. That was back in the 70ies. Things have hopefully upgraded
since then over there !

It was not a conversion... May be I did not express myself too well. The
design of the amfleet car/metroliner has been used to build the SPV
motorcoach but they have been built anew. I wonder if this picture is
recent, I thaught that the SPVs had been scratched.

Got it.

The Wikipedia page threw me off, as it mentions the spvs being converted to passenger cars.



On the other end, before the SPV you had the RDC, a much more successful
design, which dates back almost from end of WW2. Those ones have indeed
been used as hauled coaches at the end of their life. I remember whole trains
of RDCs hauled by one loc, F40PH or something like that, on suburban lines
out of Boston North Station, with the RDC engines idling to produce power
for the A/C. That was back in the 70ies. Things have hopefully upgraded
since then over there !

You never really know in this country. :ohno:

Several companies here make battery diesel switchers. The diesel engine only charges the batteries, braking is regenerative as well.

- A

I have to say that diesel trains are much worse than electrics. They are noisy as hell and the pollution is terrible. I live in the west of England and all our trains are diesels, our network has suffered from years of underinvestment and poor management. Recently they have announced the electrification of the great western main line and south Wales line, which will be the first improvement since the 70s. It will cut the current Bristol to London time of 1h44m to 1h25m, which would be a major improvement. I have used the trains in the south east before which are electrified and they are brilliant, reliable, quick and cheap. Most of the UK stands out as backwards when it comes to railways by still using diesel.

Most of the UK stands out as backwards when it comes to railways by still using diesel.

I don't really see diesel as backwards. Not as good at electric maybe, but modern high speed diesel trains I don't think are that bad. A lot of the turbostars really are quite good.

diesel trains are slow and noisy and they stink, electric is the way to go

I don't really see diesel as backwards. Not as good at electric maybe, but modern high speed diesel trains I don't think are that bad. A lot of the turbostars really are quite good.
If you compare the efficiency rates of diesel engines to electric motors then it IS backwards.

^^ I tend to agree. The on site pollution is also not to be ignored, especially next to very frequented diesel tracks.

If you compare the efficiency rates of diesel engines to electric motors then it IS backwards.

Sure ! But one should not forget that the electricity that is transformed
into motive power at an efficiency above 90% is itself coming, mostly, from a
thermal power plant whose efficiency is, at best, at 40% or so. So, for the
complete energy supply chain, diesel is not that far behind electric.

diesel trains are slow and noisy and they stink, electric is the way to go

that is very true. but i've been on electric trains that are very slow, noisy and they also smelt really bad. but that train was fairly old, was probably from the 1950's

I might be wrong on my beliefs, but diesel passenger rail = crap, third world for me.

yes electric is better.

but diesel rail beats no rail at all, and sometimes is the only appropriate alternative.

take my area in the north bay of the san francisco bay area. we are right now building a diesel commuter line that spans over 70 miles. since the line will be shared with heavy freight locomotives, diesel (FRA-compliant DMUs) were chosen as the best type of vehicle for this kind of service. it was difficult enough to get the region to vote yes (by a necessary two-thirds majority no less) to a .25% sales tax to fund the project, the public would never have supported the huge cost (and waste) of electrifying the entire line. keep in mind this line will have a est. daily ridership of about 5000 - not bad for the type of service and the relatively low population.

http://www.sonomamarintrain.org/

btw - if u do the math, this train (even tho it is diesel) is far better for the environment than the cars it will take off our roads and freeway(s).

United Kingdom Commits to Further Rail Electrification

December 15, 2009

Andrew Adonis, the United Kingdom’s Secretary of State for Transport, announced yesterday that the government would invest £200 million in the increased electrification of the railway system, adding to a commitment made last summer and furthering the country’s investment in carbon-friendly transportation systems.

According to Mr. Adonis, new funds would be allocated by 2016 to three projects in Northwest England: a connection between Blackpool and the West Coast Main Line; a link between Manchester and Euxton Junction; and a corridor between Huyton and Wigan. This comes in addition to the £1.1 billion worth of announcements made in July, which included the electrification of the corridor between Liverpool and Manchester and the installation of overhead catenary along the Great Western Main Line between London and Reading, Bristol, Cardiff, and Oxford. The line between Bedford and Sheffield may also be electrified by 2020 as part of a larger interest in electrifying the country’s network.

The net effect: an increase in total rail passenger miles traveled on electric trains from 60% today to 67% in 2017, with new service to 22 towns and cities formerly only welcoming diesel trains. Customers will benefit from faster travel between Scotland and Northwest England and from London to Wales. Pollutants from diesel locomotives will be reduced, with a corresponding uptick in electricity usage.

Rolling stock on the newly electric lines will come from the already electric London-area commuter railroads being replaced by the Crossrail regional rail scheme, which in turn will be receiving new trains once its new train tunnel opens under London city center. In addition, the government is planning an investment in 1,300 more cars for the system as a whole.

The recent focus on rail by the U.K.’s Labour government comes at the conclusion of twelve years in power, with elections next year likely to result in a Conservative win. Much of the first decade under the leadership of Prime Minister Tony Blair meant limited investment in the new mode outside of an upgrade of the West Coast Main Line as the government simply attempted to correct the mess that resulted from the privatization of British Rail in the early 1990s; that effort is yet to be completed, as the recent failure of several operating contracts attests.

With pressure from the rival Conservatives to develop a plan for high-speed rail, Labourites have pushed their own improvement programs focusing on electrification and the High-Speed 2 program, which would connect London and Scotland in just over two hours. A decision on the alignment of that line will be announced in the spring, just prior to elections. Labour is clearly attempting to use a renewed focus on rail improvements as an electoral point-booster. Whether the citizenry will be convinced is another matter, since Labour suffers from deep unpopularity as a result of its long stay in government, limited ability to improve public services, and involvement in the Iraq War.

No matter, each of these electrification projects is good news for the country’s transportation system, since they will ultimately result in faster, more reliable trains. Electric vehicles provide the benefit of eliminating point-source pollutants, but their implementation may or may not produce overall lower carbon emissions since that depends on the source of electric power. If Britain’s electricity continues to be sourced primarily from coal, gas, and oil, improvements will be minor; a more serious switch to nuclear and renewable sources in compliance with objectives that may be established this week in Copenhagen would make electric trains far more environmentally sustainable.

a good article relating to electrification taken from the transport politic

Oh dear, New Zealand trains are almost entirely diesel. However, we are getting new "hybrid" trains from China and there are plans for a high speed link between Auckland and Wellington which should be electric and enter service around 2012 (Fingers crossed).

In the meantime, we'll just have to stick with our ancient, badly funded and maintained railway infratructure.

Sure ! But one should not forget that the electricity that is transformed
into motive power at an efficiency above 90% is itself coming, mostly, from a
thermal power plant whose efficiency is, at best, at 40% or so. So, for the
complete energy supply chain, diesel is not that far behind electric.

the french use nuclear power ... most others use either damns or other sources of EASILY AVAILABLE free power (such as water , wind or solar).

People tend to INVEST FOR THE FUTURE when building such infraestructures ... the british are just negating reality (until HS2 is built at least). :cheers:

Most routes that are served with 100mph diesels could be better served by 140mph tilting EMU's ... most routes served by 124mph DMU's could be served nowadays by 200mph HS trains ... most of the track infraestructure upgrades could be WELL PAID OVER if you had done that 20 years ago.

Heres a couple of random examples:

Paddington-Didcot could take 15 minutes (200mph trains) or 20 minutes (140mph trains)

the entire London-Peterborough-York trip could be sheduled for a little over 55 minutes (trains at 200mph or more) ... you have the signaling , electrification and 4 track space available to do so ... just needed to invest propperly at a propper time ... they choose not to do so.

from yorkto the north a ATP stiled tilting train would save HUGe amounts of time ... again ... not done.

Midland Main line and GWR not being electrified could (and should) be considered crimes against the nation ... or something like that. :lol:

Nevermind the commuter areas where diesels still run ... travel times FELL abruptly when an EMU replaces a DMU service ... acceleration is nothing alike. :ohno:

Heres a couple of random examples:

Paddington-Didcot could take 15 minutes (200mph trains) or 20 minutes (140mph trains)

the entire London-Peterborough-York trip could be sheduled for a little over 55 minutes (trains at 200mph or more) ... you have the signaling , electrification and 4 track space available to do so ... just needed to invest propperly at a propper time ... they choose not to do so.

from yorkto the north a ATP stiled tilting train would save HUGe amounts of time ... again ... not done.

Midland Main line and GWR not being electrified could (and should) be considered crimes against the nation ... or something like that. :lol:

Nevermind the commuter areas where diesels still run ... travel times FELL abruptly when an EMU replaces a DMU service ... acceleration is nothing alike. :ohno:

The Great western main line is getting electrified and so is the Liverpool-Manchester route. All the express DMUs here are tilting, I'm not big fan of them mainly because of the noise inside.

Riding the UK rail network is like time travel for me. Yes it is backwards.

Most routes that are served with 100mph diesels could be better served by 140mph tilting EMU's ... most routes served by 124mph DMU's could be served nowadays by 200mph HS trains ... most of the track infraestructure upgrades could be WELL PAID OVER if you had done that 20 years ago.

Heres a couple of random examples:

Paddington-Didcot could take 15 minutes (200mph trains) or 20 minutes (140mph trains)

the entire London-Peterborough-York trip could be sheduled for a little over 55 minutes (trains at 200mph or more) ... you have the signaling , electrification and 4 track space available to do so ... just needed to invest propperly at a propper time ... they choose not to do so.

from yorkto the north a ATP stiled tilting train would save HUGe amounts of time ... again ... not done.

Midland Main line and GWR not being electrified could (and should) be considered crimes against the nation ... or something like that. :lol:

Nevermind the commuter areas where diesels still run ... travel times FELL abruptly when an EMU replaces a DMU service ... acceleration is nothing alike. :ohno:


175mph on the GWR, maximum, for some sections, 155mph for much of the rest of it. It could not be higher, but that is still a massive improvement.

Most of the rest of the network would get nothing like as fast a service if the existing track is upgraded. And upgrading the existing network for speed is costly way of achieving little.

Riding the UK rail network is like time travel for me. Yes it is backwards.

When exactly was it you did that? It really not that bad, overcrowded yes, but that has a lot to do with the silly population density here.

You guys should research "ALP-45"... Dual mode catenary/diesel passenger locomotive.

- A

The Great western main line is getting electrified and so is the Liverpool-Manchester route. All the express DMUs here are tilting, I'm a big fan of them mainly because of the noise inside.

Voyagers are pure CRAP ... and yess ... I rode on them ... that's how I formed my "good" opinion on them. :cheers:

The virgin Pendolinos are also a little bit odd ... nothing like continental pendolinos ...

^^ I don't know if it is the cramped 2+2 seating , lack of noise insulation or the generalised lack of space in those trains but they surelly are nothing to be compared with true HS trains everywhere else. :dunno:

175mph on the GWR, maximum, for some sections, 155mph for much of the rest of it. It could not be higher, but that is still a massive improvement.

Most of the rest of the network would get nothing like as fast a service if the existing track is upgraded. And upgrading the existing network for speed is costly way of achieving little.

The most important investments in the british network should be:

1- creation of a trunck network of ELG (european loading gauge) intermodal freight terminals ... break everithing if needed be ... just create a couple of corridors where (standard) lorry-carrying and container trains can pass without restrictions.
2- install ERTMS or other ATC/ATP nationwide
3- create a couple of 200mph (or more) routes ... theres no need to actually create a 500 miles long HS2 ... just a couple of sections here and there. :dunno:
4- major electrifications and tilting trains to most destinations
5- elimination of some heritage oddities here and there ...

... but no ... better to invest in 125mph diesel tilting trains and EMD locos. :lol:

^^ I mostly agree.

BTW yes our Pendolinos are smaller loading guage than the continental ones.

The coach with pantographs on the Pendolinos have amazingly tiny overhead storage.

Thanks to the UK loading gauge and tilt:lol:

Voyagers suck with the noise and vibration, but they do accelerate nicely though.

Voyagers are pure CRAP ... and yess ... I rode on them ... that's how I formed my "good" opinion on them. :cheers:

The virgin Pendolinos are also a little bit odd ... nothing like continental pendolinos ...

^^ I don't know if it is the cramped 2+2 seating , lack of noise insulation or the generalised lack of space in those trains but they surelly are nothing to be compared with true HS trains everywhere else. :dunno:


I agree, Voyagers are crap. VERY noisy for the vibration almost feels too good for my own good! (in the wrong places lol). They do accelerate pretty fast, and run at 125Mpg which is good for a DMU.

The 390s (Pendolino) are built to the smaller UK loading gauge. And also they tilt so they have to me narrower still to allow this to happen...I don't think they are that cramped tho. The windows are very small which can make it feel cramped. The noise insulation is good tho. You can't hear track noise at all! Sometimes the werring sound of the engines but there still pretty quiet.

I used a Pendolino for the first time this year and I have no complaints at all. The onboard facilities were great, the noise was virtually non-existant, and the journey time was enough to convince me never to drive to London again.

^^ i agree, few weeks ago i went to birmingham nec for the classic car show from London Euston, and it was a virgin pendolino train, the ride was very comportable and quiet, no outside noise whatsoever.

^^^^

i agree with both you two. Pendolino's are great, i got on one from liverpool to london and back a few weeks ago.

It takes 2 hours and 6 minutes, in a car it would be more like 5 hours, they are very smooth and quiet, the on boar service is great and i love looking out the window while they tilt, its like being on a plane.

Nice to hear some positive comments for a change! I've never been on one though :(

I prefer good old-fashioned loco+carriages+loco/DVT trains like the HSTs on the East Coast mainline:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/EMT_HST_43058_Leicester_AB1.JPG/800px-EMT_HST_43058_Leicester_AB1.JPG

And not forgetting of course the UK's best TOC, Wrexham & Shropshire.. :lovethem:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/43/WSMR_DVT.jpg

http://www.wrexhamandshropshire.co.uk/

Their newly refurbished sets are brilliant btw. And they're increasing the length of their sets to 4 carriages.

I don't like those huge overland power cables either, just look at the Linthebene it's crazy.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/50/138594563_273b93f9a8.jpg

Just one example:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Matterhorn_and_Gornergratbahn.jpg
This is one of the most famous motives in Switzerland (including the train). I don't see where the overhead wires look that bad.It look much better when they are place in the middle of a double track intead of in the sides.

Their newly refurbished sets are brilliant btw. And they're increasing the length of their sets to 4 carriages.

I so agree! The MK3 coaches look the best ever, inside and out!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/38/Q_Mark_IIIA_TSO_12127_Standard_Class_Interior.JPG/790px-Q_Mark_IIIA_TSO_12127_Standard_Class_Interior.JPG

Heres some NJT videos of Diesels on the Line near me.

NJT Train approaching Nanuet,NY

<object width="640" height="505"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0s33whoknS4&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x402061&color2=0x9461ca&hd=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0s33whoknS4&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x402061&color2=0x9461ca&hd=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="505"></embed></object>

NJT Train Approaching Pearl River,NY

<object width="640" height="505"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5hdOaBJZ71g&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&hd=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5hdOaBJZ71g&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&hd=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="505"></embed></object>

NJT Train blasting through Montvale,NJ

<object width="640" height="505"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rQVF2RONUyI&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6&hd=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rQVF2RONUyI&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6&hd=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="505"></embed></object>

<object width="640" height="505"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/z7Oaitwimjg&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6&hd=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/z7Oaitwimjg&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6&hd=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="505"></embed></object>

NJT Trains @ Dover Station

<object width="640" height="505"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/L2naiBqLV7w&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6&hd=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/L2naiBqLV7w&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6&hd=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="505"></embed></object>

I do not care about there size , They do there jobs , getting people form point A to Point B.

~Corey

I so agree! The MK3 coaches look the best ever, inside and out!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/38/Q_Mark_IIIA_TSO_12127_Standard_Class_Interior.JPG/790px-Q_Mark_IIIA_TSO_12127_Standard_Class_Interior.JPG

Wow that looks good. Mk3s and 4s are a dream to ride. Better ride quality than TGV trailers (ok, only just, TGVs aren't exactly Pacers) and so quiet. The product of the golden age of British Rail engineering.

Unfortunately Manchester Planner, locos + trailers is probably no longer, everything seems to be going EMU/DMU. Although I like DMUs, I'm with Posh, I love the noisy racket they make, unlike Sotavento. But I even sit on the lower deck at the back on double decker buses to feel the rumble. :)

3- create a couple of 200mph (or more) routes ... theres no need to actually create a 500 miles long HS2 ... just a couple of sections here and there. :dunno:


i disagree, the money spent to re-lay some stretches of track, and other modifications probably wouldn't be justified by the minor time benefits achieved.

On the ECML only a few sections were suitable for 140mph, and even where there were suitable stretches of track level crossings posed a problem.

A few major high speed routes integrated into a wider electrified network employing tilting trains would be ideal. In Britain, a small country, HSR could really flourish. The conservatives seem to promise this, but considering the disdain they held railways with during their last period of government I'm not convinced.

My theory/opinion is that most American railroads stick with diesel, because simply, the majority of railroad traffic in the US is composed of freight, and HEAVY freight, such as coal. Also, the mindset of most American railroads are to stick as many cars on one train as possible and diesel can generate the power to pull the load easier than electricity can. Speed is not the main focus on these trains but power. Nevertheless, almost NONE of the locomotives in the US are purely diesel. Most use diesel engines which powers a generator and electric motor that powers the wheels. It's just that the electricity is generated on the locomotive itself, instead of being located in wires.

^^ No, electric locomotives produce more power than diesel, and can therefore haul much more in the majority of circumstances.

The only restriction on electric locomotives is the same restriction as on diesels - adhesion. Moving off from a standstill both electric and diesel trains have the same amount of tractive effort, that is, its approximately 30% of the weight of the locomotive. If both types of locomotive weight 125t they will both have about 40t of force to pull the train (this is why some freight locomotives have ballast added so they get more traction). As the train speeds up adhesion becomes less critical and absolute installed power does, and as electric lomotives can easily have 50% more installed power per ton of locomotive it is quite obvious which wins at higher speeds.

For british examples, the 129t diesel class 70 has 3690 bhp, whereas the electric 126t class 92 has 6760 bhp, nearly twice as much. Yet as they both weight the same and have the same co-co configuration they both have similar starting tractive efforts - about 360-400 kN.

This means they can both haul the same amount of weight, but the electric train will take it on to a higher top speed (twice the power, root of 2 = 1.41, therefore about 1.41 times faster, or approximately 40%) before it runs out of power.

The reason why the USA didn't go electric over the majority of routes is that there are significantly large distances to be electrified for very low levels of traffic on many routes (as in number of trains, obviously total tonnage is still quite high). And if not much of the network can justify electrification then for operational reasons its better to just have diesel. It is obviously a good choice as railfreight in the US is very competitive, and the future looks good, made all the more clear by Warren Buffett's purchase of BNSF.

The coach with pantographs on the Pendolinos have amazingly tiny overhead storage.

Thanks to the UK loading gauge and tilt:lol:

Voyagers suck with the noise and vibration, but they do accelerate nicely though.

the biggest problem in the UK is the ultra-high platforms ... it makes impossible to take advantage of low clearance to add some extra height to the vehicles. :cheers:


Who would had ever think that perfect standards would in the end contribute to the extra restrictiveness of the living quarters of the trains ??? :ohno:

Talgos and TGV's can proffit from an average height of 3m just by lowering the floor to 50/60cm heignhs ... in the british network that would be very hard to accept/force ...

i disagree, the money spent to re-lay some stretches of track, and other modifications probably wouldn't be justified by the minor time benefits achieved.

On the ECML only a few sections were suitable for 140mph, and even where there were suitable stretches of track level crossings posed a problem.

A few major high speed routes integrated into a wider electrified network employing tilting trains would be ideal. In Britain, a small country, HSR could really flourish. The conservatives seem to promise this, but considering the disdain they held railways with during their last period of government I'm not convinced.

The british network does indeed benefit MORE from a couple of different 100km HSL's than from a completely new route ... but then again ... the ones who will suffer from the failed plans are yourselves ... do as you see fit. :lol:

My theory/opinion is that most American railroads stick with diesel, because simply, the majority of railroad traffic in the US is composed of freight, and HEAVY freight, such as coal. Also, the mindset of most American railroads are to stick as many cars on one train as possible and diesel can generate the power to pull the load easier than electricity can. Speed is not the main focus on these trains but power. Nevertheless, almost NONE of the locomotives in the US are purely diesel. Most use diesel engines which powers a generator and electric motor that powers the wheels. It's just that the electricity is generated on the locomotive itself, instead of being located in wires.

the biggest trains in the USa are indeed coal trains ... and they use electrics to pull them ... so that is not the definite advantage of diesels.

http://www.trainweb.org/southwestshorts/images/bmlpcowsprings.jpg
http://www.trainweb.org/southwestshorts/bmlpcowsprings.html

http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/tr_me100.jpg
http://www.northeast.railfan.net/electric12.html

http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/milwE34.jpg

In the long run it is much more ECONOMICAL to have electric freight than large fleets of diesels ... specially when we are dealing with coal/petrol freight specific traffic. :cheers:

Nuclear , solar , wind , hidric , coal , petrol all serve to power those same electrics. :ohno:

Some unknown ELECTRIC locomotives in the navajo tribe deserted lands actually provide the means to the electricity used in the ENTIRE Los Angeles metropolitan area ... not some lame diesels like the ones you see in downtown LA pulling the comuter traffic around there. :nuts:


The USA was indeed (at some point in the pasT) a leading country in massive electrification of freight routes ... at some point (around early 1970's) they simply decided to commit mas suicide (in economic terms) and almost ALL railroads simply folded and colapsed into bancrupcy ... stupidly dieselisating of otherwise PROFFITABLE electrified corridors contibuted in large part to those same suicides.

:ohno:

the biggest trains in the USa are indeed coal trains ... and they use electrics to pull them ... so that is not the definite advantage of diesels.

http://www.trainweb.org/southwestshorts/images/bmlpcowsprings.jpg
http://www.trainweb.org/southwestshorts/bmlpcowsprings.html

http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/tr_me100.jpg
http://www.northeast.railfan.net/electric12.html

http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/milwE34.jpg

In the long run it is much more ECONOMICAL to have electric freight than large fleets of diesels ... specially when we are dealing with coal/petrol freight specific traffic. :cheers:

Nuclear , solar , wind , hidric , coal , petrol all serve to power those same electrics. :ohno:

Some unknown ELECTRIC locomotives in the navajo tribe deserted lands actually provide the means to the electricity used in the ENTIRE Los Angeles metropolitan area ... not some lame diesels like the ones you see in downtown LA pulling the comuter traffic around there. :nuts:


The USA was indeed (at some point in the pasT) a leading country in massive electrification of freight routes ... at some point (around early 1970's) they simply decided to commit mas suicide (in economic terms) and almost ALL railroads simply folded and colapsed into bancrupcy ... stupidly dieselisating of otherwise PROFFITABLE electrified corridors contibuted in large part to those same suicides.

:ohno:

Thats only line in Utah and those are left over Amtrak Locos.....

Thats only line in Utah and those are left over Amtrak Locos.....

I think I saw that line when I was on holiday there...is it in the south of Utah? I cnt remember any town names in the area tho

It is true that all US railroads which switched from electrics to diesels went bancrupt. The longest railway in the world Transsib is electrified. So it would make sense in the long term to electrify at least some transcontinental corridor in the US. However the US railroads are listed companies. Every quarter te have to show off some good numbers. Thus they do not make investments which only pay off in 20 years. On the other side Chinese thing in very long terms and so they have a massive electrification program.

the biggest trains in the USa are indeed coal trains ... and they use electrics to pull them ... so that is not the definite advantage of diesels.

These look like electric locomotives to you?:

http://www.railpictures.net/images/d1/3/2/9/7329.1270476484.jpg
http://www.railpictures.net/images/d1/1/7/0/8170.1270483098.jpg
http://www.railpictures.net/images/d1/4/7/5/9475.1270005952.jpg

^^ In fairness he said the biggest were electric, hauling coal. He didn't say all coal was hauled electrically. Though he may be wrong nonetheless.

These look like electric locomotives to you?:

http://www.railpictures.net/images/d1/3/2/9/7329.1270476484.jpg
http://www.railpictures.net/images/d1/1/7/0/8170.1270483098.jpg
http://www.railpictures.net/images/d1/4/7/5/9475.1270005952.jpg

I love these trains!

It's like a snake. :P Really, freight trains in this country are so underrated IMO.

Those locomotives must be seriously powerful if two of them can pull all those coal hoppers!

^^

Indeed. But the most powerful freight locos reside in... you guessed it... China, for the use of... you've guessed it again... haulin coal.

But yes. Electric power trains are more powerful in general than their internal combustion counterparts, even for hauling coal. The largest reason for the ineffeciencies of internal combustion is the machincial transmission.

Those locomotives must be seriously powerful if two of them can pull all those coal hoppers!


I bet there are two more at the end.

Thats only line in Utah and those are left over Amtrak Locos.....

.. as long as Utah remains one of the 50 my statement holds true. :bash:

These look like electric locomotives to you?:

http://www.railpictures.net/images/d1/3/2/9/7329.1270476484.jpg
http://www.railpictures.net/images/d1/1/7/0/8170.1270483098.jpg
http://www.railpictures.net/images/d1/4/7/5/9475.1270005952.jpg

Yes ... diesel-electric to be precise. :cheers:

Don't you see the basic flaws in that pictures ???

imported petrol is used to feed those locomotives who haul coal to the powerplants who in turn lighten up yoiur cities ...

http://train.scanditrain.de/info/erzbahn/Dm3_Vassijaure_2003_g.jpg

http://train.scanditrain.de/info/erzbahn/IORE+Dm_Gransjoe_2003_g.jpg

http://homepage.hispeed.ch/Christener/Kiruna/Bilder/Vitafors.JPG

:ohno:

.. as long as Utah remains one of the 50 my statement holds true. :bash:



Yes ... diesel-electric to be precise. :cheers:

Don't you see the basic flaws in that pictures ???

imported petrol is used to feed those locomotives who haul coal to the powerplants who in turn lighten up yoiur cities ...

http://train.scanditrain.de/info/erzbahn/Dm3_Vassijaure_2003_g.jpg

http://train.scanditrain.de/info/erzbahn/IORE+Dm_Gransjoe_2003_g.jpg

http://homepage.hispeed.ch/Christener/Kiruna/Bilder/Vitafors.JPG

:ohno:

In Utah that line is powered by the Coal Power Plant the Coal is delivered too , here in the Northeast the lines are powered by Hydro , wind , and other clean sources.

Don't you see the basic flaws in that pictures ???

imported petrol is used to feed those locomotives who haul coal to the powerplants who in turn lighten up yoiur cities ...
[/IMG]

:ohno:
I wasn't talking about the primary source of fuel for the locomotives, I was responding to your post about electric locomotives and saying that the heaviest coal trains in the US aren't hauled by electricity alone.:)

Don't you see the basic flaws in that pictures ???

imported petrol is used to feed those locomotives who haul coal to the powerplants who in turn lighten up yoiur cities ...
[/IMG]

:ohno:
I wasn't talking about the primary source of fuel for the locomotives, I was just responding to your post about electric locomotives and saying that the heaviest coal trains in the US aren't hauled by pure electric powered locomotives :)

It is true that all US railroads which switched from electrics to diesels went bancrupt.

What you say here is not true.

We never really see much freight in the UK. I only ever see it at rush hour going thru Manchester Piccadilly I dunno why they run them at the worst time ever

^^ One time I was on a GNER train going from Edimburg to Newcastle and we were "stopped" so a couple of freight(coal trains) could pass ahead of us ... :lol:

We never really see much freight in the UK. I only ever see it at rush hour going thru Manchester Piccadilly I dunno why they run them at the worst time ever

Freight is fairly common on the GEML south of the Felixstowe branch, mainly because of the container port there.

DMU's like these will replace some Push-pull lines Trainsets in Boston , Chicago , & Seattle.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/BM93_Signatur.JPG/800px-BM93_Signatur.JPG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BM93_Signatur.JPG

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a0/Gtw_riverline.JPG/800px-Gtw_riverline.JPG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gtw_riverline.JPG

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3233/2322217987_1d3366bfd5_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/southerncalifornian/2322217987/sizes/l/

DMU's like these will replace some Push-pull lines Trainsets in Boston , Chicago , & Seattle.



The odd thing is that these trains are considered "light rail" in the US, with all attending complications, whereas in Europe they comply with the current mainline rail TSI safety requirements just fine...

The odd thing is that these trains are considered "light rail" in the US, with all attending complications, whereas in Europe they comply with the current mainline rail TSI safety requirements just fine...

Too get around the retarded FRA rules , you need to get creative sometimes , and some of these lines don't warrant a commuter rail anymore.

Lots of Diesel Passenger services here.

ANY conventional european/japanese passenger car can be easily converted to FRA aproved american standards ...



... one just needs to replace the aluminium frames with skyscraper graded steel pilars ... and the replacement for any light alloy/fiberglass/plastic covering just needs to be moulded with cast iron.


Voila ... american FRA aproved light rail momuter traffic. :cheers:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3233/2322217987_1d3366bfd5_b.jpg


Who knows ... with a 30ton. axle load this beasts can weight as much as 360ton ... 90 ton per car ??? :cheers:

ANY conventional european/japanese passenger car can be easily converted to FRA aproved american standards ...



... one just needs to replace the aluminium frames with skyscraper graded steel pilars ... and the replacement for any light alloy/fiberglass/plastic covering just needs to be moulded with cast iron.


Voila ... american FRA aproved light rail momuter traffic. :cheers:




Who knows ... with a 30ton. axle load this beasts can weight as much as 360ton ... 90 ton per car ??? :cheers:

Sorry but structural endurance doesn't work that way since by using heavier material, stress of it own weight completely offsets structural integrity.
By using new material all calculations needs to be redone in which calls for complete new design.

^^ I think he was taking the micky.

Its not all good having light trains. I wouldn't want to be in a UK 142 if it crashed into a 185...the 185 being really quite heavy and the 142 weighing nothing (as a train)

I wouldn't want to be in a 142 if it crashed into a cow. They're crap mistakes that should never have been built.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slagathor
The pictures of overhead cables in Switzerland just illustrate that, although you can make this system look less bad, you can never actually make it look good. Kudos to the Swiss for trying, of course. But this appears to be an unsolvable issue (where third rail isn't an option).

It is just Your personal and a bit useless opinion. I love how electrified railways look like. Most of people I know prefer electrical transport too because of acceleration. Do not make your opinion like the only truth.

Swiss railways are amazing and fit in landscape greatly.

I am just flabbergasted at the manner in which he thinks that the cable line going on top of a electric train is pollution ...ooops .. let me use his terminology "horizon pollution" and want to stick to his argument while others have been patient enough to support their argument by posting pics, however, ultimately forgetting the amount of colossal damage "diesel engines" does to the environment in comparison to electric ones.

Sorry but structural endurance doesn't work that way since by using heavier material, stress of it own weight completely offsets structural integrity.
By using new material all calculations needs to be redone in which calls for complete new design.

What are you talking about ???


It's not about redoing any calculations ... it's all about building from scratch with the needed values in mind. :cheers:

An electric unit meant to ride on roads (aka tram) needs to be soft enough as to not destroy road traffic and pedestrians ... an electric/diesel unit meant to ride on railways (aka heavy rail) needs to follow the crashwortiness standards apliable to the railways into wich it will run ...


A siemens desiro "looking" can weight as little as 30 tones or as much as 380 tones ... depending on the environment. :bash:

I thought the so called diesel trains are all actually diesel-electrics.
This is to overcome the problems with transmission.
With this approach, the diesel engine can be run on the optimal speed most of the time to run the generators.
Thereafter, the electric motors will take over to actually propel the train.
If this is the case, why would there be a huge difference in the acceleration and max speed between diesel and electric trains?

I thought the so called diesel trains are all actually diesel-electrics.
This is to overcome the problems with transmission.
With this approach, the diesel engine can be run on the optimal speed most of the time to run the generators.
Thereafter, the electric motors will take over to actually propel the train.
If this is the case, why would there be a huge difference in the acceleration and max speed between diesel and electric trains?

Short answer, "Weight".
Diesel will always need to carry it's fuel supply with it while electric train's energy is fed through wires.
It may not be that simple but carrying fuel supply along with it is considered dead weight being a disadvantage.

The possible advantage however of that weight is traction, it gets a much better torque and grip on slopes.

The possible advantage however of that weight is traction, it gets a much better torque and grip on slopes.

Grip or rely of torque to rail maybe, the actual amount of torque no since that is completely dependent on the engine not weight.

The odd thing is that these trains are considered "light rail" in the US, with all attending complications, whereas in Europe they comply with the current mainline rail TSI safety requirements just fine...There are some non-FRA compliant light rail vehicles (both electric and diesel) in the US that operate on shared tracks with freight vehicles. This is particularly true where light rail lines are built along freight rail rights of way that still have active customers.

The way they get around the FRA-restrictions are time segregation with half-hour gaps. For example, the light rail line can operate from 05:00 until 23:30, with the freight rail having access from 00:00 until 04:30.

If this is the case, why would there be a huge difference in the acceleration and max speed between diesel and electric trains?

Because electric locos are far more powerful than diesel ones. The most powerful diesel engine installed in a loco is about 4000bhp, but typically 3000-3500bhp. Electric locos can have double that power.

The most powerful diesel in the UK is 3300bhp, the most powerful electric is over 6000bhp, and they weigh exactly the same.

I thought the so called diesel trains are all actually diesel-electrics.
This is to overcome the problems with transmission.
With this approach, the diesel engine can be run on the optimal speed most of the time to run the generators.
Thereafter, the electric motors will take over to actually propel the train.
If this is the case, why would there be a huge difference in the acceleration and max speed between diesel and electric trains?

Most diesel multiple units are indeed diesel-Mechanical (using motors and transmissions like buses/trucks) or diesel-Hidraulic while others also emply diesel-electric transmissions but astonishingly while most locomotives seem to favour diesel-electric in the caseof DMU's it's not that common to see d-e transmissions (at least in europe where Voith turbo hidraulic transmissiosnare in the thousands) ... here are some examples:

BritishRail class 158 (182 built, diesel hidraulic)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/35/158791_Padley_Wood.jpg/800px-158791_Padley_Wood.jpg

Because electric locos are far more powerful than diesel ones. The most powerful diesel engine installed in a loco is about 4000bhp, but typically 3000-3500bhp. Electric locos can have double that power.

The most powerful diesel in the UK is 3300bhp, the most powerful electric is over 6000bhp, and they weigh exactly the same.

15220bhp here in this picture: :lol:
http://www.railpictures.net/images/d1/2/6/7/9267.1227342569.jpg

8636bhp in this picture:
http://www.railpictures.net/images/d1/6/2/1/8621.1273268501.jpg

offtopic: notice that the pair in the bottom picture has about 50% more traction effort than the pair in the top picture ... this is only due t the european railways prefering to buy bo-bo electric locomotives and adding a pair in Multiple working ... co-co electric locomotives are rarely seen nowadays in europe. :cheers:

Short answer, "Weight".
Diesel will always need to carry it's fuel supply with it while electric train's energy is fed through wires.
It may not be that simple but carrying fuel supply along with it is considered dead weight being a disadvantage.

The weight of the fuel is of course a penalty, but it is far from being the
most important one. You must realize that by embarking a power plant
on board, a diesel locomotive's installed power is three times the useful
power (if your loco has 3000 hp, you need a diesel of 3000 hp, a generator
of 3000 hp, and then electric motors for 3000 hp). So for the same power,
it is, roughly, 3 times the weight. And as the limit usually is the weight per
axle, the maximum weight that you can embark puts a limit on the power
that you can install. There are other constraints like diesel engine's physical
dimensions, but the first limit that is usually reached is weight. This is why
you still see lots of CC diesels - it can embark 50% more weigth than a BB.

Most diesel multiple units are indeed diesel-Mechanical (using motors and transmissions like buses/trucks) or diesel-Hidraulic while others also emply diesel-electric transmissions but astonishingly while most locomotives seem to favour diesel-electric in the caseof DMU's it's not that common to see d-e transmissions (at least in europe where Voith turbo hidraulic transmissiosnare in the thousands)

This is absolutely normal. Mechanic transmissions cannot absorb that much
power. Over a few hundred hp it can't hold it. So you see mechanical
transmissions for engines the size of a truck (*), not much more.

Higher power than that you shift to hydraulic transmission, which can absorb
more power but is a bit heavier and more expensive.

And when the power gets into the thousands of hp, then you need to shift
to electrical transmission (**) because the hydraulic transmission won't
be able to do it. US railroads have tried to used hydraulic transmission
locos 50 years ago and they failed mlserably after just a few years of service.

Electric transmission is heavier than hydraulic and also more expensive,
so it won't be used for DMUs where the installed power won't exceed the
capability of hydraulics. And DMUs need to have good acceleration, so
excessive weight is the worst ennemy.

(*) you CAN build mechanical transmissions that can whitstand much more
than the power of a truck. Aircraft carriers, after all, have mechanical
transmissions... But the physical dimensions you are coming to are not
compatible anymore with rail technology.

(**) You can see a diesel-electric loco both ways : either you group the
diesel engine with the generator, and you say that it is an electric loco
with its power plant on-board ; or you group the generator with the electric
motors, which you see as some sort of gearbox, and then you have a diesel
loco with electric transmission...