Visiting the ICE Train at Sacramento, CA
Loren I. Petrich
On August 26, I woke up early, walked 3/4 mi to a Livermore
bus stop, caught the 5:50 AM BART bus, and was on my way. Its travels
on I-580 took me past the construction of a new BART line. At its
destination, the BayFair BART station, I took a BART train to the
Richmond BART/Amtrak station. I arrived rather early, and I got some
pictures of the southbound Coast Starlate, er, Starlight -- a little
less than 30 minutes late.
I bought a ticket, and the 8:04 Capitol was a minute or so
late. It was pulled by a CalTrain loco, complete with ditch lights.
The trip was uneventful, though I did overhear a talking detector
being picked up by the crew at the end of the train.
Crossing the Sacramento River, I noticed a visitor to the
California State Railroad Museum trackage -- it was a locomotive or
cab car with a long, blunt nose like an airplane's nose. It was
painted white, with a red horizontal stripe. I knew what it was.
After picking up some rail-transit-advocate newsletters, I
went to the CSRM, and dropped in on a press conference. I asked if a
diesel version of the ICE loco was available, and someone said that
Siemens was working on a 150-mph diesel loco with GE. I also found out
that a tilting version was available, a version of the Italian
Pendolino.
I got a good look at the train, both outside and inside,
taking a lot of pictures as I went. There was a loco at each end, 5
second-class car, one restaurant car, and one (or two?) first-class
cars. The two Amtrak F59AC's were in evidence at the south end of the
train (the Sacramento River bridge was north of the train), though
only one of them was coupled to the train. They had been painted in DB
colors for the occasion. The train looked as if its "Amtrak" labels
were the only concession to its current host.
Inside the train was a different story. I went through the
accessible parts not once, but twice. Both classes of coaches had the
same basic format: a lot of seating, with some sets of seats facing
each other across tables. Some of the seats were within enclosed
compartments, and there was a coat rack and some token-operated
lockers. The seats were carefully shaped and had pillow headrests,
though they were a bit stiff. One of the cars included a conductor's
office, which included 3 CD players, presumably for the listening
pleasure of the passengers. The dining car was rather attractively
decorated, and one part of it was sofas with tables with surfaces of
polished red granite (looked like mottled red and black), and one part
of it was tables with movable chairs. The roof was domed and had
narrow windows in it.
Not surprisingly, there were plenty of people on hand to
discuss the train, and I picked up handouts at any chance I could get.
These included a lot of ICE-train stuff, and the newsletters of the
Train Riders of California and the Modern Transit Society (those
mentioned earlier). One of them mentioned a possible ICE service
change: the end of preparing full meals aboard the train, and of
having only snack-bar service. That seems plausible for runs that are
not particularly long.
I did some touristy things, like ride a horse-pulled buggy
around a couple blocks of "Old Sacramento" (a tourist area in
late-19th-cy. style architecture). It was only as fast as walking, and
it was rather bumpy, but it did give some insight into what it was
like before rail and rubber-tire vehicles became common.
I also rode the light-rail system, which is shaped like a
slightly opened hairpin with the bend in downtown Sac'to. The train
was four cars (!) of the articulated variety that is so common for
Light Rail Vehicles. A large fraction of the track was now
double-tracked, with only a couple single-track stretches remaining.
The ride was pleasant, though sometimes mildly rough. I saw someone
get kicked off the train for not having a valid ticket, so there was
at least one loser in the game of Ticketless Russian Roulette.
Returning to the Sac'to Amtrak station, I noticed the ICE
train on one of the tracks, and half-hoped it would be the returning
Capitol. But not long after I got there, it pulled out on what I
inferred was a VIP trip to Suisun/Fairfield mentioned earlier. As it
did so, it revealed an Amtrak train on another track, which is what I
did take home. On the way (if I remember correctly, shortly out of
Davis), I saw another train speed by on the other track. It was hard
to make out anything, but I do remember white with a red stripe. So
that must have been the returning VIP train.
So there it is -- I saw the ICE train. It seemed more
luxurious on the inside than the ABB X2000.
I did notice one thing curious about the official issues of
hype -- there was no mention of any sales of ICE trains outside of
Germany. Compare this to the TGV, which now has some export deals for
it. Anything on how various manufacturers of high-speed trains have
done in the export field? I point that out because there would be more
possibility for competition abroad than at home for many of these
train makers: Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, and Japan all
have gov't-owned rail monopolies, which may well have a tendency to
"buy domestic".
--
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/l...@s1.gov
CZ94000
>
description of Loren's visit of the ICE deleted
>
> After picking up some rail-transit-advocate newsletters, I
>went to the CSRM, and dropped in on a press conference. I asked if a
>diesel version of the ICE loco was available, and someone said that
>Siemens was working on a 150-mph diesel loco with GE. I also found out
>that a tilting version was available, a version of the Italian
>Pendolino.
>
I read in one of the railfan magazines (can't remember which)
that Siemens was teaming up with EMD, not GE, to promote
the ICE in North America. They were already associated in
the F69AC project. GEC-Alsthom is supposed to be working with
Bombardier and GE to try to sell the TGV (Bombardier has already
been active in this dossier in Canada), and the makers of the
Pendolino (Fiat?) are collaborating with Morrison Knudsen.
ABB, in contrast, is going it alone in pushing the X2000, without
a US-based parner.
Tom Box
CZ...@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA
dave pierson
> I did notice one thing curious about the official issues of
>hype -- there was no mention of any sales of ICE trains outside of
>Germany. Compare this to the TGV, which now has some export deals for
>it. Anything on how various manufacturers of high-speed trains have
>done in the export field?
As near as I can tel TGV (Spain, notably and Portugal(?)) has made most
of the sales points.
> I point that out because there would be more possibility for competition
>abroad than at home for many of these train makers: Britain, France, Germany,
>Italy, Sweden, and Japan all have gov't-owned rail monopolies, which may well
>have a tendency to "buy domestic".
TGV has the longest "time in service" of any (bar the Shin Kansen). In
fact under the new rules of Europe '92 the bidding is required, under
penalty (apparently enforceable) to be open. Additionally, many once
government owned RRs are being privatized will all possible speed.
thanks
dave pierson |the facts, as accurately as i can manage,
Digital Equipment Corporation |the opinions, my own.
40 Old Bolton Rd |I am the NRA.
Stow, Mass, USA
01775 pie...@msd26.enet.dec.com
"He has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing." A J Raffles
Adrian Brandt
Now that I have ridden the ICE both in Germany and on my local
commuter rail line (CalTrain) track, I can definitely say that
that while the train makes a big difference in ride-quality,
the tracks make an even BIGGER difference.
Until now, I've always suspected that CalTrain's inferior ride
quality (to that of European trains of all kinds and classes)
had to do with the quality of the track, and not so much the
equipment. I've never been able to confirm it by riding one
type of equipment first on typical (excellent) German track, and
then on typical (lousy) US track.
While the ICE equipment definitely improved the ride a lot (smoother
and much quieter), the ride was nothing like it is in Germany. It
was quite enjoyable nevertheless, and it was fun watching all the
railfans and ordinary folks doing double-takes as we cruised up the
Peninsula from San Jose. A Channel 7 News helicopter paced the
train all the way to the Bayshore station and then peeled off.
Later, I was curious to see how much of that footage they would
use, so I tuned in and watched their report. Most of what they
showed was "canned" footage and they only used about 10 seconds of
footage shot from their helicopter! Sheesh. TV news sure is
wasteful. (I noticed the same thing about the X2000 coverage, they
shot tons of video and used about 10 or 20 seconds.)
Another TV news report, I think it was channel 5, but I'm not sure,
had some really lame commentary. When they showed footage of the
ICE pulling into the San Francisco station. This is a dead-end
station and so naturally trains pull in very slowly. So what did
they do? The camera pulls in tight on the train pulling slowly
pulling into the platform area and the voice-over guy says some-
thing like "the German high speed ICE train pulled into San
Francisco today going very slllooooooowwwllly..." Sheesh, what
idiotic "journalism". What does the guy want, the train pulling
in very fast, crashing through the station or something?
Anyway, there was a nice press conference where Caltrans director,
James van Loben-Sels, and SF Supervisor and CalTrain JPB member,
Tom Hsieh, said a lot of very encouraging things about getting a
high speed rail link in place connecting San Francisco to Los
Angeles. Santa Clara County Supervisor and CalTrain JPB member,
Rod Diridon, also spoke about putting a 200mph high speed rail
network to the California voters within the next 3 or 4 years to
be funded in part by a gas tax of some kind. Other speakers
included reps from Southern Pacific, Siemens-Duewag, and AEG.
(They all stand to benefit from ICEs being bought and used in
this area. SP, of course, was pushing the merits of its Coast
Line--just like it did when the X2000 came through here. SP would
like nothing more than to sell the whole thing for high speed rail
use between San Jose and Los Angeles. All the *real* high speed
SF-LA proposals (3 hours or less) so far, however, have focused on
routing the train through the Central Valley along a brand-new
right of way...)
Then they got us back on the train for a nice catered lunch at
our seats, followed by the VIP run to Santa Clara. Since I didn't
care for the bus ride back to SF being offered at Santa Clara, I
rode on to San Jose. This gave me just enough time to use my
German on some of the traveling ICE-team to wrangle a T-Shirt
out of them. Too bad they couldn't scare up an XL for me though...
My advice is to go ride the ICEs (and all the other *very* nice
trains Europe has to offer) over in Europe if you get the chance.
You can see and do TONS with a rail pass over there because the
train service is so good, frequent, and fast.
--
Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!portal!ntmtv!adrian
INTERNET: adr...@ntmtv.com
Jishnu Mukerji
|> In article <25rvt8$g...@s1.gov>, l...@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes, in part:
|>
|> > I did notice one thing curious about the official issues of
|> >hype -- there was no mention of any sales of ICE trains outside of
|> >Germany. Compare this to the TGV, which now has some export deals for
|> >it. Anything on how various manufacturers of high-speed trains have
|> >done in the export field?
|> As near as I can tel TGV (Spain, notably and Portugal(?)) has made most
|> of the sales points.
There is no mention because to date none has been sold outside Germany. Most
recently ICE lost out to TGV on the South Korea deal as I reported last week.
So far TGV's have been sold to Spain (AVE), Chunnel service (Eurostar), for
service in Belgium, Netherlands, Luxemburg, and Germany (TGV-PBKA), and now South
Korea (don't know what they will be called).
The Italians have sold Pendolinos to Switzerland. I don't know if they have had
any other successes.
--
Jishnu Mukerji
j...@usl.com
+1 908 522 5024
Garth G. Groff
Too bad you missed a visit to Hammond the Archivist in
Old Town Sacramento. He has all sorts of good train
stuff for sale--timetables, stocks, photos, etc. Prices
are reasonable, but not such a great deal as a few years
ago. I stop in every time I am in Sacramento.
~S
--
Garth (Haridas) Groff
"Not yet famous author"
gg...@poe.acc.virginia.EDU Chant "Govinda Bohlo Hare"
Tim Smith
> Now that I have ridden the ICE both in Germany and on my local
> commuter rail line (CalTrain) track, I can definitely say that
> that while the train makes a big difference in ride-quality,
> the tracks make an even BIGGER difference.
> Until now, I've always suspected that CalTrain's inferior ride
> quality (to that of European trains of all kinds and classes)
> had to do with the quality of the track, and not so much the
> equipment. I've never been able to confirm it by riding one
> type of equipment first on typical (excellent) German track, and
> then on typical (lousy) US track.
> While the ICE equipment definitely improved the ride a lot (smoother
> and much quieter), the ride was nothing like it is in Germany.
Sigh. I have serious doubts that the US will be able to build _and
maintain_ a high speed rail line. Anywhere. Ever.
I've come, reluctantly and sadly, to believe that it's a cultural
thing. It's not restricted to railroads, though examples are
prevalent there. The American tendency is to build things rugged and
strong, then provide the minimum maintenance necessary to keep them
running. The Model T Ford and Harley-Davidson motorcycles are some
paradigmatic non-rail examples. European automobiles that required
serious regular maintenance (Rover, Renault, and Peugeot, for
example) have not been successful over here.
It seems that most European innovations in railroading that have been
tried here (compound steam locos, different valve gear, streamlining
steam locos) were eventually rejected as being "too
difficult/expensive to maintain". Why should high speed passenger
trains be different?
Can we realistically expect the American taxpayers to build and
_maintain_ high speed rail travel, given the generally hostile
attitude to rail travel in this country? If a line is built, and
then the funds to maintain it are voted out of existence, what
happens?
When you read in a recent Trains article that the new GE "Genesis"
loco was designed without any compound curves, to simplify
maintenance, then you look at the engines of an ICE (nothing but
compound curves), you have to wonder.
Cesar Vergara, one of the designers of the Genesis, was quoted as
saying:
"Think of the ICE as a Corvette, and Genesis as a pick-up truck.
This locomotive will pass thousands of street crossings per month. It
will hit things. It will be stoned. That's reality."
> Anyway, there was a nice press conference where Caltrans director,
> James van Loben-Sels, and SF Supervisor and CalTrain JPB member,
> Tom Hsieh, said a lot of very encouraging things about getting a
> high speed rail link in place connecting San Francisco to Los
> Angeles. Santa Clara County Supervisor and CalTrain JPB member,
> Rod Diridon, also spoke about putting a 200mph high speed rail
> network to the California voters within the next 3 or 4 years to
> be funded in part by a gas tax of some kind.
Pipedreams. Californians will approve a gas tax to fund a rail line?
Excuse me, but :-) :-) :-) :-) (Sorry, had to get that out of my system.)
> My advice is to go ride the ICEs (and all the other *very* nice
> trains Europe has to offer) over in Europe if you get the chance.
> You can see and do TONS with a rail pass over there because the
> train service is so good, frequent, and fast.
Adrian is right. If you want to ride a modern passenger train, go to
Europe, or Japan (or soon Korea or China). We will have high speed
rail in this country sometime after it has become widespread in
Mexico and all of Central and South America (if we can still afford
it by then, that is).
--Tim (tss...@netcom.com)
Jishnu Mukerji
|>
|> > My advice is to go ride the ICEs (and all the other *very* nice
|> > trains Europe has to offer) over in Europe if you get the chance.
|> > You can see and do TONS with a rail pass over there because the
|> > train service is so good, frequent, and fast.
|>
|> Adrian is right. If you want to ride a modern passenger train, go to
|> Europe, or Japan (or soon Korea or China). We will have high speed
|> rail in this country sometime after it has become widespread in
|> Mexico and all of Central and South America (if we can still afford
|> it by then, that is).
I have come to the same conclusion and plan to travel to Europe as often as I can
afford to. Considering that Pakistan has recently been talking to Soferail, a
French railroad construction services consortium, exploring the possibility of
constructing a high speed line connecting Karachi with Lahore, it is only a
matter of time before the Mexicans get into that mood. Sigh...
Sandy F. Smith, Jr.
(CZ94000) wrote:
>
> Are you sure it's GE with whom Siemens is working?
> I read in one of the railfan magazines (can't remember which)
> that Siemens was teaming up with EMD, not GE, to promote
> the ICE in North America. They were already associated in
> the F69AC project. GEC-Alsthom is supposed to be working with
> Bombardier and GE to try to sell the TGV (Bombardier has already
> been active in this dossier in Canada), and the makers of the
> Pendolino (Fiat?) are collaborating with Morrison Knudsen.
> ABB, in contrast, is going it alone in pushing the X2000, without
> a US-based parner.
My head's beginning to spin. OK, heavy rail and transit partnerships need
not be identical, but I'd like a scorecard to tell who the players are.
Let me see, thus far I've heard:
Siemens/AEG - EMD (GE?) teaming up to promote the ICE in the US
Siemens/Duewag - builds light rail vehicles in Germany and the US
AEG/Westinghouse - partnership formed to build subway cars (subscribers to
TRANSIT have heard a little about this: Is this a successor to
Westinghouse-Amrail (US-French partnership of a few years back that (I
think) bid on DC Metro work)?)
plus stuff above...
What are the current planetary alignments as far as high-speed trains and
transit equipment are concerned?
_________________________________________________________________________
Sandy F. Smith Jr._____...@mail.sas.upenn.edu________(215) 898-4940
Administrative Assistant, Graduate Division, School of Arts and Sciences,
University of Pennsylvania, 16 College Hall, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6378
(Opinions mine, not Penn's. If they want 'em, they gotta pay for 'em.)
dadinirT noslE
>My head's beginning to spin. OK, heavy rail and transit partnerships need
>not be identical, but I'd like a scorecard to tell who the players are.
>Let me see, thus far I've heard:
>
>Siemens/AEG - EMD (GE?) teaming up to promote the ICE in the US
>Siemens/Duewag - builds light rail vehicles in Germany and the US
>AEG/Westinghouse - partnership formed to build subway cars (subscribers to
>TRANSIT have heard a little about this: Is this a successor to
>Westinghouse-Amrail (US-French partnership of a few years back that (I
>think) bid on DC Metro work)?)
>plus stuff above...
>
>What are the current planetary alignments as far as high-speed trains and
>transit equipment are concerned?
Here's some more:
ABB (Sweden) and AAI (Baltimore, MD) - Light rail cars for Baltimore's Central
Light Rail Line. As a matter of fact, these LRVs are similar to the X2000 in
that they both have steerable axles!
Siemens-DUEWAG (Germany), TRW Aerospace (Redondo Beach, CA) and AAI (Baltimore,
MD) - Standardized light rail cars for Los Angeles' Metro Rail system (Blue
and Green Lines), aka "The LA Car," Production begins in 1994, cars come out
in 1996. As a matter of fact, the TRW headquarters overlooks the same Metro
Green Line yard where the LA Cars will be stored.
-- 30 --
etri...@scf.usc.edu * Elson Trinidad
_______________<______ ______________________ ______________________ __
/o/____Amtrak___X2000___||o [][][][][][][][][] o||o [][][][][][][][][] o||o
`/o===o-------------o===o o===o------------o===o--o===o------------o===o--o=
______________________ ___<__________________
[_________________] o||_________ICE_________[\\
-o--------------o--o--'`---o--o-----------o--o--'
_____________________________________________________________________________
>>=== High Speed Rail For America! >>===
Jan Vaessen
>There is no mention because to date none has been sold outside Germany. Most
>recently ICE lost out to TGV on the South Korea deal as I reported last week.
>So far TGV's have been sold to Spain (AVE), Chunnel service (Eurostar), for
>service in Belgium, Netherlands, Luxemburg, and Germany (TGV-PBKA), and now
>South Korea (don't know what they will be called).
TGV in Luxemburg ???? Maybe after the TGV-Est high speed line is built
there will be TGV service Paris - Luxemburg. But that is not the
TGV-PBKA project.
>The Italians have sold Pendolinos to Switzerland. I don't know if they have had
>any other successes.
They sold Pendolino-based DMU's to DB; they now operate the
'RegionalSchnellBahn' (Regional Express) Nu"rnberg - Bayreuth and
Nu"rnberg - Hof.
As far as the sale of ICE technology is concerned: there are tentative
plans for the introduction of a ICE service Frankfurt - Amsterdam, as
soon as the Frankfurt - Cologne high speed line is finished. I don't
know which finacial/organizational construction will be applied: either
NS will pay 'rent' for the ICE coming into the Netherlands, or they will
buy a fraction of the rolling stock, as happened in the TGV-PBKA
project. If the latter is the case, that would be a sale of ICE
technology.
Jan Vaessen
Eindhoven University of Technology
Eindhoven, The Netherlands
tgt...@chem.tue.nl
Jordan Hayes
It's a *cultural* thing? How ridiculous!
High-speed rail can and will be integrated into the national
infrastructure; it's just a matter of picking the right project to show
success with. In particular, that means finding a route that presently
has decent ridership and services on either end for regular traffic.
That sort of rules out all the "blue-sky" projects (at least initially)
that assume that if it gets built that it will get used.
The NEC is a perfect example -- train travel on the corridor is not
foreign, and arriving at Washington's Union Station is almost
equivalent to arriving at National airport. There are connections to
other transit, including the local subway, and you can get a rental
car. The success of MetroLiner has more to do with how it doesn't
look too "different" to the way people travel.
On the other hand, the Texas/TGV project seems doomed, since it doesn't
connect in the right way, and it doesn't go where the people who drive
on the freeway presently (or fly) go. Why can't you get a rental car
at most train stations? Why isn't there more of an effort to connect
rail lines (even local ones) to airports?
/jordan
Jussi Tepponen
>The Italians have sold Pendolinos to Switzerland. I don't know if they have had
>any other successes.
They have sold two units to Finland. These units should start operating in
1994 between Turku and Helsinki. They have also made a reservation for more
units after the test period is over in 1997.
**************************
Jussi Tepponen
tepp...@lut.fi
Jishnu Mukerji
|> Geeze, what a bunch of nay-sayers.
|>
|> It's a *cultural* thing? How ridiculous!
|>
|> High-speed rail can and will be integrated into the national
|> infrastructure; it's just a matter of picking the right project to show
|> success with. In particular, that means finding a route that presently
|> has decent ridership and services on either end for regular traffic.
|> That sort of rules out all the "blue-sky" projects (at least initially)
|> that assume that if it gets built that it will get used.
..... .....
|> On the other hand, the Texas/TGV project seems doomed, since it doesn't
|> connect in the right way, and it doesn't go where the people who drive
|> on the freeway presently (or fly) go. Why can't you get a rental car
|> at most train stations? Why isn't there more of an effort to connect
|> rail lines (even local ones) to airports?
Indeed why not? I thought that *is* the cultural thing (among the
transportation planners and administrators) that we were alluding to - the fact
that they are not.:-) As soon as I see the American transportation planners start
thinking differently I will immediately change my opinion about their "cultural"
antipathy towards planning anything that can actually work, and be within budget
and be executed in any reasonable amount of time, without unnecessary bells and
whistles and ornaments.
Admittedly, the position I am taking above is an extreme one, and indeed there
are a few exceptions to the trend. But a depressingly large proportion of public
transportation projects in the USA seem to have the negative characteristic
alluded to above.
Bertram Weyerich
Path: hermes.uni-konstanz.de!news.belwue.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!uunet!mcsun!sun4nl!tuegate.tue.nl!tb3.chem.tue.nl!tgttgv
From: tgt...@tb3.chem.tue.nl (Jan Vaessen)
Newsgroups: rec.railroad
Date: 1 Sep 1993 09:24:06 +0200
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands
Lines: 34
Distribution: world
References: <25rvt8$g...@s1.gov> <CCLE...@ryn.mro4.dec.com> <25vjao$7...@bird.usl.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tb3.chem.tue.nl
j...@usl.com (Jishnu Mukerji) writes:
>There is no mention because to date none has been sold outside Germany. Most
>recently ICE lost out to TGV on the South Korea deal as I reported last week.
>So far TGV's have been sold to Spain (AVE), Chunnel service (Eurostar), for
>service in Belgium, Netherlands, Luxemburg, and Germany (TGV-PBKA), and now
>South Korea (don't know what they will be called).
>The Italians have sold Pendolinos to Switzerland. I don't know if they have had
>any other successes.
They sold Pendolino-based DMU's to DB; they now operate the
'RegionalSchnellBahn' (Regional Express) Nu"rnberg - Bayreuth and
Nu"rnberg - Hof.
Actually, the DMU's were not bought from Italy. They have been built
by German companies, only the FIAT patent for the tilting mechanism
have been bought. FIAT doesn't manufacture diesel-electric
pendolinos, just plain electric ones.
I think that at the moment, these units are the only diesel-electric
"tilting" railway cars on the world. Or does anyone know of others?
Bertram Weyerich
Uni Konstanz, Dept. of Physics
Konstanz, Germany
William Moss
>
>
>Actually, the DMU's were not bought from Italy. They have been built
>by German companies, only the FIAT patent for the tilting mechanism
>have been bought. FIAT doesn't manufacture diesel-electric
>pendolinos, just plain electric ones.
>I think that at the moment, these units are the only diesel-electric
>"tilting" railway cars on the world. Or does anyone know of others?
Bombardier built 100 LRC (Light-Rapid-Comfortable/Legere-Rapide-Confortable)
for VIA Canada in 1982, as well as a number of LRC (diesel electric) engines.
The LRC's were designed by Bombardier together with Alcan and (I think)
Dofasco.
LRC coaches have active tilting mechanisms, and Chevron-suspension trucks
(aka 'steerable trucks') ala X2000.
Most LRC trains are propelled by diesel electric F40's now,
but that's because VIA
found itself with a bunch of locomotives purchased for a western
double-decker streamliner service whose capital was cut by the government
after the locos were ordered, but before VIA could order the cars
from Bombardier. (The F40's are easier to maintain than the LRC
locomotives; the LRC engines are used for trains faster than
90-95 miles per hour (145-155 km/h).
(VIA has since learnt to spend capital budgets while it still
has them. That's how the Budd stainless steel rebuild got done
before it could be cancelled.)
The LRC engines are designed for 125 MPH (200 km/h), but currently
CN won't allow VIA to run faster than 100 mph (160 km/h) due to axle
load limits.
--
===========================================================================
William G. Moss disclaimer: not the views of BNR or NT
Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa +1 613 763 8108 WIL...@BNR.CA
===========================================================================
Loren I. Petrich
>Adrian Brandt writes:
[The ICE's ride on German vs. American (SF-SJ) track...]
>Sigh. I have serious doubts that the US will be able to build _and
>maintain_ a high speed rail line. Anywhere. Ever.
>I've come, reluctantly and sadly, to believe that it's a cultural
>thing. It's not restricted to railroads, though examples are
>prevalent there. The American tendency is to build things rugged and
>strong, then provide the minimum maintenance necessary to keep them
>running. The Model T Ford and Harley-Davidson motorcycles are some
>paradigmatic non-rail examples. European automobiles that required
>serious regular maintenance (Rover, Renault, and Peugeot, for
>example) have not been successful over here.
Airliners would seem to be an exception to this rule.
And how well do Rovers, Renaults, and Peugeots now do?
>It seems that most European innovations in railroading that have been
>tried here (compound steam locos, different valve gear, streamlining
>steam locos) were eventually rejected as being "too
>difficult/expensive to maintain". Why should high speed passenger
>trains be different?
What is it about high-speed rail that supposedly makes it need
a _lot_ of maintenance?
>"Think of the ICE as a Corvette, and Genesis as a pick-up truck.
>This locomotive will pass thousands of street crossings per month. It
>Adrian is right. If you want to ride a modern passenger train, go to
>Europe, or Japan (or soon Korea or China). We will have high speed
>rail in this country sometime after it has become widespread in
>Mexico and all of Central and South America (if we can still afford
>it by then, that is).
I'm sure that the politicians will somehow cough up the money
if they really want to :-)
Loren I. Petrich
>Geeze, what a bunch of nay-sayers.
>It's a *cultural* thing? How ridiculous!
>High-speed rail can and will be integrated into the national
>infrastructure; it's just a matter of picking the right project to show
>success with.
[On the NEC vs. the Texas TGV...]
... Why can't you get a rental car
>at most train stations?
Bug Amtrak about it some time. And point out some specific
examples.
... Why isn't there more of an effort to connect
>rail lines (even local ones) to airports?
I agree that that is a serious deficiency of many airports. I
find it especially curious that in New York City, with its
superabundance of rail transit, has no rail-transit lines to either of
its two airports. Have there ever been any plans to extend either
subway lines or LIRR branches to either JFK (wasn't it once called
Idlewild or something?) or LaGuardia airports?
Once again, Europe appears to be well ahead of America, with
good train service available at several airports. I wonder how many
have rail connections, and I wonder how many more have such
connections on the way?
American existing:
Boston (the "T" subways)
Washington National Airport (the Metro)
Philadelphia (SEPTA Regional Lines)
Baltimore-Washington (the NEC: Amtrak and MARC)
St. Louis (its new light-rail system)
(the Bay Area now has buses that connect to BART for both San
Francisco and Oakland airports; a bus connects the San Jose airport to
the San Jose light-rail system; CalTrain is reportedly to get an
improved bus connection to the SF airport)
American planned or U/C:
Los Angeles (the Green Line light-rail system)
San Francisco (a BART extension with a combined BART/CalTrain station)
Oakland (an elevated light-rail line to the Oakland Coliseum BART station)
Well, there is the consolation that Canada is probably worse :-)
Jeremy Higdon
> In article <tssmithC...@netcom.com> tss...@netcom.com (Tim Smith) writes:
> >Sigh. I have serious doubts that the US will be able to build _and
> >maintain_ a high speed rail line. Anywhere. Ever.
>
> >I've come, reluctantly and sadly, to believe that it's a cultural
> >thing. It's not restricted to railroads, though examples are
> >prevalent there. The American tendency is to build things rugged and
> >strong, then provide the minimum maintenance necessary to keep them
> >running. The Model T Ford and Harley-Davidson motorcycles are some
> >paradigmatic non-rail examples. European automobiles that required
> >serious regular maintenance (Rover, Renault, and Peugeot, for
> >example) have not been successful over here.
>
> Airliners would seem to be an exception to this rule.
>
> And how well do Rovers, Renaults, and Peugeots now do?
So well that none of them do business over here. But that's more
because they cost more than the Japanese competition and/or
weren't as reliable. They have lots of market protection in their
home countries. Even VW is in a lot of trouble over here these
days.
jeremy
Bob MacDowell
play the obnoxious American. Hang on for another Flamewar!
>Sigh. I have serious doubts that the US will be able to build _and
>maintain_ a high speed rail line. Anywhere. Ever.
Sigh. I have serious doubts that the SP will be able to build _and
maintain_ a high speed rail line. Anywhere. Ever.
If _America_ wanted to, we could build _and maintain_ the fastest high
speed rail line in the world! With us, it's not a question of ability.
But motivation. We're addicted to our cars, our airplanes. We *like*
having cheap $1 gas, while you Europeans suffer with $4/gal. That's
because your government wants you to ride trains. Our government wants us
to drive. Land o' the Free [gas], Home of the Brave [drivers].
> The American tendency is to build things rugged and
>strong, then provide the minimum maintenance necessary to keep them
>running. The Model T Ford and Harley-Davidson motorcycles are some
>paradigmatic non-rail examples. European automobiles that required
>serious regular maintenance (Rover, Renault, and Peugeot, for
>example) have not been successful over here.
Machines that need serious regular maintenance are *better*!!??
Since when!? Is a British locomotive better than an EMD?
Foster Yoeman didn't think so. So, to return your own question,
Sigh. I seriously doubt that the Europeans will be able to build
a rugged _and reliable_ automobile. Ever.
>It seems that most European innovations in railroading that have been
>tried here (compound steam locos, different valve gear, streamlining
>steam locos) were eventually rejected as being "too
>difficult/expensive to maintain". Why should high speed passenger
>trains be different?
Because they *are* too difficult and expensive to maintain? Europeans
are manaical about sticking with their own faulty designs, rather than
importing reliable American technology. You'all can't even come up with
a decent knuckle coupler.
>Can we realistically expect the American taxpayers to build and
>_maintain_ high speed rail travel, given the generally hostile
>attitude to rail travel in this country? If a line is built, and
>then the funds to maintain it are voted out of existence, what
>happens?
Nope. Not as long as the American taxpayers don't want it. That's this
silly thing we have called *democracy*. We don't always like it, but on
any given issue, most of us do. That's likely to change, and when it
does, lookout! And if the funds are voted out, the operating agencies
will scramble around and find other funds. If it's really valuable.
If not, in the scrapper! We don't keep old stuff we don't want, just
out of 'historical necessity'. We have better things to buy.
>When you read in a recent Trains article that the new GE "Genesis"
>loco was designed without any compound curves, to simplify
>maintenance, then you look at the engines of an ICE (nothing but
>compound curves), you have to wonder.
Yeah, when an ICE gets bashed up, it'll be in the shop longer.
Not too bright on their part.
>"Think of the ICE as a Corvette, and Genesis as a pick-up truck.
>This locomotive will pass thousands of street crossings per month. It
>will hit things. It will be stoned. That's reality."
Yeah. *WE* Americans deal better with reality. That's what THAT means.
>Pipedreams. Californians will approve a gas tax to fund a rail line?
>Excuse me, but :-) :-) :-) :-) (Sorry, had to get that out of my system.)
More likely in America than anywhere else.
Look, spare us your Continental haughtiness. I'm sure you think your trains
are hot shit, but our trains work *just fine* for the way we like 'em.
*WE* have Superliners. You can do nothing but *envy* them because you
built all your bridges and tunnels too low! And you lambast our short
sightedness... HA!!
When we get seriously into high-speed trains, they'll be the best in the
world! And the *only* reason you won't replace your trains with ours, is
your government's economic protectionism! And then who'll have the last
laugh.
Damned furriners!
-Bob, insert 2000 smileys above.
Charley Wingate
>>... Why can't you get a rental car at most train stations?
>Bug Amtrak about it some time. And point out some specific examples.
This may not be as much of a problem as it appears, due to changes in the
car rental business. When I flew down to Charlotte, I rented a car from
Enterprise, which doesn't have a lot at the airport. They brought the car
to me and chauffeured me and my stuff back to their homebase (a hotel in the
downtown). I imagine they might do the same thing for someone arriving at
the railroad station. (It was cheaper, too. The only hitch was that we had
a minor glitch at the airport and I ended up being picked up by the fellow
from Butler Aviation instead, due to a similiarty in cars. It was soon
straightened out.)
--
C. Wingate + "The peace of God, it is no peace,
+ but strife closed in the sod.
man...@cs.umd.edu + Yet, brothers, pray for but one thing:
tove!mangoe + the marv'lous peace of God."
The Starlord
Don't forget Cleveland the RTA (Formerly CTS) connects to the airport.
In fact in my hazy memory it was the first rail connection to an
airport in the US. I think it has been in operation for about 20-25 years!
--
John E. Kabat Jr. <|> jo...@teleng.eng.telxon.com
Telxon Corporation <|> by...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
P.O. BOX 5582 <|> 1-800-800-8001 x 3554
Akron, OH 44334-0582 <|> Principal Software Engineer
Jishnu Mukerji
|> American planned or U/C [rail transit connection to airport]:
Newark - [planned/UC] LRT connection from heavy rail (Newark Penn, Newark
Broad Street and Elizabeth station) to monorail station that connects to all
terminal buildings. Maybe eventually monorail will connect directly to new heavy
rail station on the North East Corridor line. The monorail is under construction
to the long term parking lots. The LRT Newark to Long Term Lot E? is planned. The
North East Corridor station and extension of the monorail to it is under serious
consideration. Through ticketing or lack thereof will be an issue in this case
too. At least the monorail will be free, funded by the $3 airport tax.
JFK and La Guardia - [being discussed] rail connection of as yet undetermined
type connecting JFK with La Guardia roughly along the Van Wyck Expressway
alignment with a stop in between at Jamaica LIRR/MTA station. So to get anywhere
except to the other airport or Jamaica will involve at least one and typically
more than one transfer.
Seems to me like a plan that is setup to lead to the "Nobody rides
transit even if you build it" syndrome, and shortfall in ridership
expectations, specially if there is no through ticketing to LIRR and MTA.
Jon Bell
> Once again, Europe appears to be well ahead of America, with
>good train service available at several airports. I wonder how many
>have rail connections, and I wonder how many more have such
>connections on the way?
>
> American existing:
Don't forget Cleveland (since 1968)!
--
Jon Bell <jtb...@presby.edu> Presbyterian College
Dept. of Physics and Computer Science Clinton, South Carolina USA
Tim Smith
> tss...@netcom.com (Tim Smith) plays the haughty European, and I
> play the obnoxious American. Hang on for another Flamewar!
Donning my asbestos suit...
> Sigh. I have serious doubts that the SP will be able to build _and
> maintain_ a high speed rail line. Anywhere. Ever.
Oops, can't argue with that.
> If _America_ wanted to, we could build _and maintain_ the fastest high
> speed rail line in the world! With us, it's not a question of ability.
> But motivation. We're addicted to our cars, our airplanes. We *like*
> having cheap $1 gas, while you Europeans suffer with $4/gal. That's
> because your government wants you to ride trains. Our government wants us
> to drive. Land o' the Free [gas], Home of the Brave [drivers].
Leaving aside the fact that your government still hasn't the foggiest
idea what it wants you to do (one of its endearing qualities), the
operative phrase here is "wanted to". Isn't that the whole point?
> > The American tendency is to build things rugged and
> >strong, then provide the minimum maintenance necessary to keep them
> >running. The Model T Ford and Harley-Davidson motorcycles are some
> >paradigmatic non-rail examples. European automobiles that required
> >serious regular maintenance (Rover, Renault, and Peugeot, for
> >example) have not been successful over here.
> Machines that need serious regular maintenance are *better*!!??
> Since when!?
Actually, Rovers and Peugeots are very reliable vehicles. Just so long
as you remember to change the oil once in a while (something you
'Murkins can't seem to grasp...). Renaults are another matter.
> Is a British locomotive better than an EMD?
Well, they're certainly a lot prettier. Perhaps they can't haul as
much, but they do cause less visual pollution. That counts for
something, doesn't it?
> Sigh. I seriously doubt that the Europeans will be able to build
> a rugged _and reliable_ automobile. Ever.
To get serious for a moment, Model Ts were not actually reliable.
It's just that John Farmer could fix his with a pipe wrench and a
hammer. But the best Model T ever built was the Citroen 2CV.
Back to trains...
> >It seems that most European innovations in railroading that have been
> >tried here (compound steam locos, different valve gear, streamlining
> >steam locos) were eventually rejected as being "too
> >difficult/expensive to maintain". Why should high speed passenger
> >trains be different?
>
> Because they *are* too difficult and expensive to maintain? Europeans
> are manaical about sticking with their own faulty designs, rather than
> importing reliable American technology. You'all can't even come up with
> a decent knuckle coupler.
Well (sniff), if you really must haul overloaded 120-car goods trains
across the vast deserts of your underpopulated country, I suppose you
need things like knuckle couplers. But weren't we talking about
passenger trains?
> >Can we realistically expect the American taxpayers to build and
> >_maintain_ high speed rail travel, given the generally hostile
> >attitude to rail travel in this country? If a line is built, and
> >then the funds to maintain it are voted out of existence, what
> >happens?
>
> Nope. Not as long as the American taxpayers don't want it. That's this
> silly thing we have called *democracy*. We don't always like it, but on
> any given issue, most of us do. That's likely to change, and when it
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> does, lookout! And if the funds are voted out, the operating agencies
> will scramble around and find other funds. If it's really valuable.
> If not, in the scrapper! We don't keep old stuff we don't want, just
> out of 'historical necessity'. We have better things to buy.
You mean you're doing in democracy? I thought that wasn't scheduled until
the 1996 reign.
So, you're going to spend a billion dollars or so building a high
speed rail net? Then scrap it if you don't like it. That's wonderful!
Isn't it nice to be rich (or at least think you are)? :-)
> >When you read in a recent Trains article that the new GE "Genesis"
> >loco was designed without any compound curves, to simplify
> >maintenance, then you look at the engines of an ICE (nothing but
> >compound curves), you have to wonder.
>
> Yeah, when an ICE gets bashed up, it'll be in the shop longer.
> Not too bright on their part.
No, when the ICE gets smashed up, a few well-trained technicians will
replace the nose in a few minutes. When a Genesis gets smashed up, a
few Amtrak people will attack it with pipe wrenches and hammers,
compounding the non-compound curves.
> Look, spare us your Continental haughtiness. I'm sure you think your trains
> are hot shit, but our trains work *just fine* for the way we like 'em.
> *WE* have Superliners. You can do nothing but *envy* them because you
> built all your bridges and tunnels too low! And you lambast our short
> sightedness... HA!!
Yes, like the train that brought me into Portland OR 6 hours late
last February. Was that the one you were thinking of? If there are
any Europeans still reading this, when was the last time one of your
passenger trains was 6 hours late? 1944, maybe?
> When we get seriously into high-speed trains, they'll be the best in the
> world! And the *only* reason you won't replace your trains with ours, is
> your government's economic protectionism! And then who'll have the last
> laugh.
The Koreans.
> Damned furriners!
Arrogant yanquis!
> -Bob, insert 2000 smileys above.
Ditto.
--Tim (tss...@netcom.com)
Adrian Turner
>When we get seriously into high-speed trains, they'll be the best in the
>world! And the *only* reason you won't replace your trains with ours, is
>your government's economic protectionism! And then who'll have the last
>laugh.
>
be based on one of the "foreign" models which are on trial here. All this
of course is predicated upon the supposition that the US really wants to
get seriously into high-speed rail!
Cheers, Adrian.
Sven Manias
> tss...@netcom.com (Tim Smith) plays the haughty European, and I
> play the obnoxious American. Hang on for another Flamewar!
>
> speed rail line in the world! With us, it's not a question of ability.
> But motivation. We're addicted to our cars, our airplanes. We *like*
> having cheap $1 gas, while you Europeans suffer with $4/gal. That's
> because your government wants you to ride trains. Our government wants us
> to drive. Land o' the Free [gas], Home of the Brave [drivers].
>
on this continent) would really want us to ride trains instead of
driving cars, then their policies would have been pretty incompetent
so far (well... actually they tend to be so anyway a lot of the time).
Believe it or not, but even over here MUCH MORE people travel by car
than by train.
> Machines that need serious regular maintenance are *better*!!??
> Since when!?
>
Better machines need better maintenance. It's as simple as that.
> Europeans
> are manaical about sticking with their own faulty designs, rather than
> importing reliable American technology. You'all can't even come up with
> a decent knuckle coupler.
>
Well... we can, and we did develop one. (Based on the Russian type,
therefore at least as strong and rugged as your American ones.)
It's just that some of the railway organisations were unable or
unwilling to deal with the financial impact of the necessary
nearly-simultaneous conversion of the entire rolling stock, so the
introduction, originally scheduled for somewhen in the mid-1970s,
was postponed to some indefinite future date. Sometimes it's a
matter of motivation rather than ability over here too.
> >When you read in a recent Trains article that the new GE "Genesis"
> >loco was designed without any compound curves, to simplify
> >maintenance, then you look at the engines of an ICE (nothing but
> >compound curves), you have to wonder.
>
> Yeah, when an ICE gets bashed up, it'll be in the shop longer.
> Not too bright on their part.
>
> >"Think of the ICE as a Corvette, and Genesis as a pick-up truck.
> >This locomotive will pass thousands of street crossings per month. It
> >will hit things. It will be stoned. That's reality."
>
Of course, we Europeans are WAY too smart to build our high speed
rail lines with level street crossings.
> -Bob, insert 2000 smileys above.
Well, some parts of my posting are actually serious... find out for
yourselves which ones are and which aren't. No smileys to make it
too easy for you.
Greetings, Sven
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sven Manias * Rintheimer Strasse 32 * 76131 Karlsruhe * Germany
Telephone: +49-721-699556
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
EARN/Bitnet: UA...@DKAUNI2.BITNET
Internet: ua...@ibm3090.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de
X.400: S=ua48;OU=ibm3090;OU=rz;P=uni-karlsruhe;A=d400;C=de
Andrew Waugh
>tried here (compound steam locos, different valve gear, streamlining
>steam locos) were eventually rejected as being "too
>difficult/expensive to maintain".
Be careful! You are dangerously close to falling into the trap that many
inventors of the steam age fell into. They would complain that they had
this marvellous invention which improved the efficiency of the loco x%.
Very often the figures were true; the invention improve the efficiency of
the locomotive (and hence reduced running costs). However, the reduced
running costs rarely covered the increased capital and maintenance costs
involved in using the invention. Hence use of the gadget was rarely economic.
Compounding is a good example. A compound locomotive increased the starting
tractive effort by around 50% over a simple locomotive for very little
additional fuel or water costs. The capital and maintenance cost, however, was
(at a minimum) the cost of an additional set of cylinders, motion gear, and
valve gear. In the case of the Mallet, it was the cost of an entire additional
engine unit. This was a significant expense and compounding in the US was
largely killed by superheating. Superheating gave a 6% increase in starting
tractive effort and (roughly) a 10% reduction in fuel and water costs for
very little increase in maintenance or capital costs.
Streamlining is an even better example. Streamlining gave a (relatively) small
reduction in air resistance (and hence a very small reduction in running costs).
The casing on the locomotive, however, significantly interfered with
maintenance as it had to be removed (and then replaced) to gain access to the
various bits and pieces. Maintenance costs thus were significantly increased.
The weight of the casing was also significant and increased the running
costs. Why was streamlining applied at all? Simply for marketing reasons:
it looked modern and up-to-date.
Finally, when comparing European and US railway practice, you shouldn't
forget the differing situations the railways found themselves in.
For example, the loading gauge in Europe is significantly smaller than in the
US. To produce a powerful locomotive in Europe it was necessary to accept some
degree of complication, such as the use of three and four cylinder locomotives.
The restricted loading gauge in Europe (particularly the use of platforms)
severely restricted cylinder diameters and hence power. If a more powerful
locomotive was needed, inside cylinders were used and the railways simply had
to accept the increased maintenance cost and capital costs that these
represented.
andrew waugh
Jeremy Higdon
>
> BTW Not everything is rosy here in Europe. (I've living here since January)
> Seems the Dutch at least are now getting very enamored of the car. Big
> cutbacks coming for the NS (nederlandse Spoorwegen). Some
> people never learn.
What is the nederlandse Spoorwegen? Intercity railroad?
jeremy
George Neville-Neil
>
>My advice is to go ride the ICEs (and all the other *very* nice
>trains Europe has to offer) over in Europe if you get the chance.
>train service is so good, frequent, and fast.
>
So, any idea why they only looked at the ICE and not TGV? From what
I understand the TGV equipment is beter, having been used, and tested
longer.
BTW Not everything is rosy here in Europe. (I've living here since January)
Seems the Dutch at least are now getting very enamored of the car. Big
cutbacks coming for the NS (nederlandse Spoorwegen). Some
people never learn.
Later,
George
Bill Blum
>> Is a British locomotive better than an EMD?
>Well, they're certainly a lot prettier. Perhaps they can't haul as
>much, but they do cause less visual pollution. That counts for
>something, doesn't it?
ObConrail:
British locomotives aren't that lovely shade of blue that graces the
American midwest and eatern seaboard. Therefore, they are uglier.
--
Bill Blum bl...@sage.cc.purdue.edu Purdue University, W. Lafayette, IN
Bob MacDowell
rec.railroad...
tssmith and bobmacd (both @netcom.com) engage in a transatlantic Toon Flamewar,
or more aptly a tickle-war? :-)
And if there's ANYONE who still hasn't put us or this thread in their kill
file by now, I would be surprised... :-)
>>>Tim Smith
>>Bob MacDowell
>Tim Smith
Bob MacDowell
Sorry for my late reply. The SP delayed my shipment of smileys beyond
the normal and expected... :-) :-) :-) <---see plenty now!
>> If _America_ wanted to, we could build _and maintain_ the fastest high
>> speed rail line in the world!
>Leaving aside the fact that your government still hasn't the foggiest
>idea what it wants you to do (one of its endearing qualities), the
>operative phrase here is "wanted to". Isn't that the whole point?
Darn, he's got me there!!!!
>> Machines that need serious regular maintenance are *better*!!??
>> Since when!?
>Actually, Rovers and Peugeots are very reliable vehicles. Just so long
>as you remember to change the oil once in a while (something you
>'Murkins can't seem to grasp...). Renaults are another matter.
Change the oil? I thought you just added a quart every six months.
>> Is a British locomotive better than an EMD?
>Well, they're certainly a lot prettier. Perhaps they can't haul as
>much, but they do cause less visual pollution. That counts for
>something, doesn't it?
Point to the European. (EMD, get some STYLE!!!! :-)
>> Sigh. I seriously doubt that the Europeans will be able to build
>> a rugged _and reliable_ automobile. Ever.
>To get serious for a moment, Model Ts were not actually reliable.
>It's just that John Farmer could fix his with a pipe wrench and a
>hammer. But the best Model T ever built was the Citroen 2CV.
AARGH!!!! This is NOT going well. I must concede again. The Citroen 2CV
is INDEED the finest Model T ever built. (well with the possible
exception of the 1974 Flyer trolleybus... :-) If I had a Deux Chevaux,
driving would be fun again!
> But weren't we talking about passenger trains?
Oh sure, change the subject back again! How European!
>You mean you're doing in democracy? I thought that wasn't scheduled until
>the 1996 reign.
Well only if Clinton, er, Reagan, er, Nixon wins... :-)
>So, you're going to spend a billion dollars or so building a high
>speed rail net? Then scrap it if you don't like it. That's wonderful!
>Isn't it nice to be rich (or at least think you are)? :-)
Oh, we know we're not rich. We just have the biggest credit line in the
history of the Universe! And that's the same thing as rich! :-)
(plus a great way to get the kids back for all the trouble they gave us :-)
>No, when the ICE gets smashed up, a few well-trained technicians will
>replace the nose in a few minutes. When a Genesis gets smashed up, a
>few Amtrak people will attack it with pipe wrenches and hammers,
>compounding the non-compound curves.
And if an unlimited number of Amtrak people beat on an unlimited number
of Genesis noses, sooner or later one of them will look like the
Venus de Milo! :-)
>Yes, like the train that brought me into Portland OR 6 hours late
>last February. Was that the one you were thinking of? If there are
>any Europeans still reading this, when was the last time one of your
>passenger trains was 6 hours late? 1944, maybe?
Well that's normal! We have a Fine Heritage of late trains, unlike the
sterile European practice. We wouldn't want to stomp on our Heritage,
would we? (and yes I know the reasoning in this thread is downright
recursive!)h
>
>> When we get seriously into high-speed trains, they'll be the best in the
>> world! And the *only* reason you won't replace your trains with ours, is
>> your government's economic protectionism! And then who'll have the last
>> laugh.
>The Koreans.
Hey don't knock them, they build a GREAT American car!
>
As always, insert 2000 smileys and hit 'k'. :-)
-Bob
Jan Vaessen
>jeremy
The NS (Nederlandse Spoorwegen = Dutch Railways (lit.)) are the Dutch
National Railways, providing **ALL** rail services in the country
(except some touristic steam railways): intercity, suburban, regional
freight and (still, but for how long ?) mail.
However, from an American viewpoint one can better think of the NS as
one big suburban railroad network. Our 'intercity' is more like an
express suburban train. The big advantage is that we have one
intergrated fare system and easy connections between long and short
distance services.
Since approx. 1970, the NS maintain a high standard of train services:
since a lot of branch lines and smaller stations were closed after WW2,
the NS offer at least one train per hour on every line, on every station
in each direction, and this throughout the day (mon-fri 6am - 11pm, sat
7am - 11pm, sun 8am - 11pm). On most lines however, there are trains
every 30 minutes from 5am - 1am on weekdays.
The cutbacks, of which the NS are speaking now, attack this standard.
Still, services will remain hourly at least, but not throughout the day.
On 'quiet' lines, there will be cuts in evening and sunday morning
services. Also, on several lines the twice hourly freqencies will be cut
to hourly. The thread of these cutbacks follow the announcement by the
Dutch government that the NS are going to be privatized, and will no
longer receive subsidies. It is difficult to judge whether the announced
plans are realistic, or that they were meant as an incentive to the
government to reconsider their subsidies.
I expect a discussion in parliament soon about the responsibility of the
government to maintain a certain standard of public transport. Compared
to the US, there are a lot of people depending on public transport
because they don't have a car. The responsibility to provide public
transport is not only an environmental one, but also a social one.
This is a time of cutbacks. With education, health services, social
services and culture under serious pressure, it logical that public
transport under attack too.
But don't worry .... yet.
The cutbacks are not too drastic, it's only that they attack a certain
standard that the Dutch have been proud of for more than 20 years.
Since 1970, the NS have (re)opened far more miles of new rail services
than they closed. That's something you can't say about most other
European countries.
But that can might change now ...
Shenandoah Junction
> What is the nederlandse Spoorwegen? Intercity railroad?
It's the Dutch national railroad.
-- BT
George Neville-Neil
Holland. It covers most of the country (though it use to cover more)
and has frequent service. The trains run the gamut from Hondekops (dog
heads) whihc are from the 50s and were supposed to have been retired this
year but were not, to the Koplopers (head runners) whihc were built by the
French (no they are not TGV) in the 80s and are nice and comfortable.
Most of the Post here goes by rail, though the PTT is now considering
canceling their contract with the NS (as it is referred to here)and using
trucks. There is service to most of the country by Intercity (express)
trains about every half hour and then there are Sneltreinen (the NS's
excuse to run the Hondekops on Intercity lines) and Stoptreinen which
are the locals. Just to make y'all jealous there are over 800 pages in
the total schedule (Spoorboekje) :-)
Trains run every fifteen minutes from Centraal Station in A'dam to Schipol
(the Airport) and the station is only a short walk (< 100 yards)
from the terminals.
Oh, I now see where Rail 2000, or whoever, stole their combined
CalTrain/BART/Airport (SFO) graphic from. It's from the NS's stuff
of their view of Schipol in 2000.
The NS is not perfect, but it's the way I'd like a railroad to be
run in the Bay Area.
Later,
George
Adrian Brandt
> So, any idea why they only looked at the ICE and not TGV? From what
> I understand the TGV equipment is beter, having been used, and tested
> longer.
It might be a case of the Germans (ICE) and Swedes (X2000) trying to
play "catch up" with the French and their TGV. Unlike the Germans and
the Swedes, the French reportedly did not make much of any effort with
Amtrak to parade their train around the country. Who knows, perhaps
the French aren't as desparate to sell and/or don't feel like they
need to do the dog and pony show routine. After all, their train is
arguably still THE most successful high speed rail technology in the
world, and it certainly still holds the world land speed record of
~320mph. Anyway, if you really want to know, ask the French.
Texas, like Korea and Spain, has chosen TGV. Spain already has theirs
running and has called it the AVE.
> BTW Not everything is rosy here in Europe.
> Big cutbacks coming for the NS (nederlandse Spoorwegen).
> Some people never learn.
They'd have to cut a hell'uva lot to get down to U.S. levels!
Heck, they'd have to rip out most of their tracks and demolish
most of their stations if they wanted to "catch up" to the U.S.
situation. The same goes for most any western European country.
--
Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!portal!ntmtv!adrian
INTERNET: adr...@ntmtv.com
Loren I. Petrich
Size comparison: Holland is not much bigger than the San
Francisco Bay Area. If a semicircle was drawn from San Francisco with
Holland's area (that's because of the ocean to the west), it would
include (or almost reach) Santa Rosa, Sacramento, Stockton, and
Monterey.
Holland's population, 13 million, is not too much greater than
this Greater Bay Area's population (only a factor of 2 or 3). Yet if
the Greater Bay Area had Holland-type train service, there would be
CalTrains and Capitols all over the place, not to mention expanded
BART and light-rail systems in most of the urbanized areas. But (sad
to say) there aren't.
Thor Lancelot Simon
Tim Smith <tss...@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <bobmacdC...@netcom.com> bob...@netcom.com (Bob MacDowell) writes:
>> tss...@netcom.com (Tim Smith) plays the haughty European, and I
>> play the obnoxious American. Hang on for another Flamewar!
>
>Donning my asbestos suit...
>
>Well, they're certainly a lot prettier. Perhaps they can't haul as
>much, but they do cause less visual pollution. That counts for
>something, doesn't it?
British locomotives look like garishly-painted cigar tubes. And to think that
once upon a time I thought that epithet applied mainly to Amfleet cars...
Not to mention that they certainly seem rather deficient on the _particulate_
pollution side of things... Often worse than even a beat-up old RDC.
>
>> Look, spare us your Continental haughtiness. I'm sure you think your trains
>> are hot shit, but our trains work *just fine* for the way we like 'em.
>> *WE* have Superliners. You can do nothing but *envy* them because you
>> built all your bridges and tunnels too low! And you lambast our short
>> sightedness... HA!!
>
>Yes, like the train that brought me into Portland OR 6 hours late
>last February. Was that the one you were thinking of? If there are
>any Europeans still reading this, when was the last time one of your
>passenger trains was 6 hours late? 1944, maybe?
I have never _ever_ _ever_ been on a train containing Italian rolling stock of
any kind which was less than forty-five minutes late.
--
Thor Lancelot Simon t...@panix.COM
When you're not feeling holy, your loneliness says that you've sinned...
Loren I. Petrich
>In article <tssmithC...@netcom.com>,
>Tim Smith <tss...@netcom.com> wrote:
: In article <bobmacdC...@netcom.com> bob...@netcom.com (Bob MacDowell) writes:
[On British locos being ugly and smoky...]
: > Look, spare us your Continental haughtiness. I'm sure you think your trains
: > are hot shit, but our trains work *just fine* for the way we like 'em.
: > *WE* have Superliners. You can do nothing but *envy* them because you
: > built all your bridges and tunnels too low! And you lambast our short
: > sightedness... HA!!
:
: Yes, like the train that brought me into Portland OR 6 hours late
: last February. Was that the one you were thinking of? If there are
: any Europeans still reading this, when was the last time one of your
: passenger trains was 6 hours late? 1944, maybe?
>I have never _ever_ _ever_ been on a train containing Italian rolling stock of
>any kind which was less than forty-five minutes late.
I guess Mussolini was a failure :-)
Bob Coe
> The Nederlandse Spoorwegen (Netherlands Railroad) is the intercity
> railroad in Holland. It covers most of the country (though it use to
> cover more) and has frequent service. The trains run the gamut from
Why are they called that? Do they actually look like a dog's head?
Can you describe the resemblance? I don't suppose you could do it
justice in ASCII? :^)
___ _ - Bob
/__) _ / / ) _ _
(_/__) (_)_(_) (___(_)_(/_______________________________________ b...@1776.COM
Robert K. Coe ** 14 Churchill St, Sudbury, Massachusetts 01776 ** 508-443-3265
Robert D'Abadie
>Subject: Re: Riding the ICE on the CalTrain line
>From: b...@1776.COM (Bob Coe)
>Date: Fri, 10 Sep 93 13:26:34 EDT
Bob
In an article I read in Mordern Railways on NS' Railway 2001 plan, it said
the trains you are referring to were nick-named "Bull-dog Train". If you've
ever seen a picture of these things, you'd know it is a pretty good
description!!
Rob d'Abadie
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert D'Abadie
George Neville-Neil
>
>They'd have to cut a hell'uva lot to get down to U.S. levels!
>
>Heck, they'd have to rip out most of their tracks and demolish
>most of their stations if they wanted to "catch up" to the U.S.
>situation. The same goes for most any western European country.
>
they may lose their biggest customer in 1995 (The Post) to trucks.
You've still got a few years left :-)
Later,
George
George Neville-Neil
Well there are some problems with the comparison. Holland is much more
densely populated than the Bay Area. Cities are MUCH smaller in area.
Also, Holland is flat. The guid to living in Holland that the emassy forces
on you here says, "The kingodom of the Netherlands is a small flat
country." and they aren't just whistling jasper. Most people get around
here on bicycle, including going to the Opera, dinner, weddings etc.
They have a good public transit system for several reasons:
1) Lots of stuff had to be rebuilt after the war.
2) Gas is expensive, and driving a car in any Dutch city is madness.
3) The country is flat.
4) Since the 70s when they found natural gas in the province of Groningen
they've had a lot of spare dough to toss around. That is changin
now and we'll see how their commitment to public transit is.
5) The place is densely populated. Rotterdam is about the distance from
Amsterdam that Palo Alto is from San Francisco.
I wouldn't take the analogy of Holland and The Bay Are too far, they are very
different places.
Later,
George
Bob Coe
One of the history books we used in high school contained a list of ten
or twelve precepts that supposedly governed life in Italy under Mussolini.
The first, fifth, and eighth (as I recall) items on the list were "Musso-
lini is always right." Accordingly, it would seem that the trains *must*
have run on time, by definition. Because as soon as Mussolini said "That
train was on time", the statement itself would presumably effect a retro-
active change in the timetable. :^)
Michal Jankowski
>>>>> Neville-Neil) said:
George> Well, can't say much for the rest of Europe, but they are
George> cutting 400 runs, and the hours are being shortened, and the
George> frequencies reduced by half. Plus they may lose their biggest
George> customer in 1995 (The Post) to trucks.
Just who exactly are 'they'?
Michal
dave pierson
US thing i can think of is original UP M10000 articulated sets, only the NS ones
have longer "noses". Thinks of a TGV profile, with less nose, and the profile
drops after the cab area. I have pictues of such, but refuse to do ASCII
graphics....
thanks
dave pierson |the facts, as accurately as i can manage,
Digital Equipment Corporation |the opinions, my own.
40 Old Bolton Rd |I am the NRA.
Stow, Mass, USA
01775 pie...@msd26.enet.dec.com
"He has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing." A J Raffles
dave pierson
>l...@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>>
>> In article <26lu5j$e...@panix.com> t...@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon)
>> writes:
>> >I have never _ever_ _ever_ been on a train containing Italian rolling
>> >stock of any kind which was less than forty-five minutes late.
>> I guess Mussolini was a failure :-)
>One of the history books we used in high school contained a list of ten
>or twelve precepts that supposedly governed life in Italy under Mussolini.
>The first, fifth, and eighth (as I recall) items on the list were "Musso-
>lini is always right." Accordingly, it would seem that the trains *must*
>have run on time, by definition. Because as soon as Mussolini said "That
>train was on time", the statement itself would presumably effect a retro-
>active change in the timetable. :^)
I haven't checked, but Nussolini came into power ropughly as three phase
electrification was "completed" (OK, Electrification is neve completed,
nut this was the end of the forst <ahemmmmm> phase.). Now with three
phase, and the technology of the time, the trains _will_ run on time.
period. (or they won't run at all, but that does not seem to have
been a problem, as the design had 10-15 years shakeout on mountain and
tunnel lines....). If this is correct, Mussolini simply inherited a
freshly upgraded system, and claimed the credit.
Jan Vaessen
>g...@queernet.org (George Neville-Neil) writes:
>> The Nederlandse Spoorwegen (Netherlands Railroad) is the intercity
>> railroad in Holland. It covers most of the country (though it use to
>> cover more) and has frequent service. The trains run the gamut from
>> Hondekops (dog heads) which are from the 50s ...
>Why are they called that? Do they actually look like a dog's head?
>Can you describe the resemblance? I don't suppose you could do it
>justice in ASCII? :^)
No, you can't do them justice. But who cares about justice ...
Let's give it a try:
___________________
/
/
/
_______/
O
/
|
|
|
|
|___________________________________
_________________
/ _____________ \
/ / | \ \
| /_______|_______\ |
| ________ ________ |
| / O \ |
|/ \|
| |
| _______________ |
| (_O___________O_) |
| |
|_____________________|
Woo ! ASCII-drawings allways look worse than you intended them.
What made the 'Hondekop' being called 'Hondekop' is the headlight right
on the 'nose'. Whit a little phantasy you can see it as a dog's nose.
(nit pick: the plural of 'hondekop' is 'hondekoppen', not 'hondekops')
Anyone wishing to see the 'hondekop' in real life should be quick: the
original 'hondekop' series from 1954 is scheduled to be scrapped before
the end of 1994 and to be replaced by double-deck trains and 'Koplopers'
(Head Runners). They're already behind schedule, but after 1995 there
will be no more original dogheads in regular service.
Beavis-N-Buttafuoco
>b...@1776.COM (Bob Coe) writes:
>>Why are they called that? Do they actually look like a dog's head?
>>Can you describe the resemblance? I don't suppose you could do it
>>justice in ASCII? :^)
>
>No, you can't do them justice. But who cares about justice ...
>Let's give it a try:
[ASCII illustrations of Snoopy deleted] :)
Some of my railfan friends like to call EMD F59PH's (of Toronto's GO Transit
and Los Angeles' Metrolink) "Chow-Chow pups."
Bow wow wow!
-- 30 --
etri...@scf.usc.edu
Elson Trinidad * University of Southern California, Los Angeles CA
=============================================================================
__________________________________________________ Metro Blue Line
_ ______________________>__ Los Angeles Metrolink
[| |]||[]_[]_[]|||[]_[]_[]||[| Metro Rail Metro Red Line
=/_\==o o======o o======o o==/___________(M)_______ Metro Green Line (1994)
=============================================================================
Rian van_der_Borgt
In a previous article, b...@1776.COM (Bob Coe) says:
>g...@queernet.org (George Neville-Neil) writes:
>> The Nederlandse Spoorwegen (Netherlands Railroad) is the intercity
>> railroad in Holland. It covers most of the country (though it use to
>> cover more) and has frequent service. The trains run the gamut from
>> Hondekops (dog heads) which are from the 50s ...
^^^^^^^^^
FYI: the plural is "hondekoppen"
>
>Why are they called that? Do they actually look like a dog's head?
>Can you describe the resemblance? I don't suppose you could do it
>justice in ASCII? :^)
Yes, they do actually look like that. They are _not_ called "Bull-dog
Train", as another poster said. (And I know, I'm from the Netherlands)
The NS are getting rid of these train sets. In 1993, all the train sets
containing "asbest" (how do you call that in English?) will be put aside:
41 4-car trains and 40 2-car trains. In August 1995, another set of 13 4-car
trains will be put aside. There will be 21 2-car trains and 13 4-car trains
left. (but who knows for how long?). They are being replaced by the new
4-car InterCity trains (these are called "koplopers"; who knows a good
English translation?) and the new double deck trains.
(Source: "Rail Magazine", July 1993)
Rian van der Borgt
Mike Lipsie MPU
George, you have been away for too long. :-)
If the Bay Area cut 400 runs, between CalTrain, AmTrak, and BART
they would be running a negative number of trains.
:-(
--
Mike Lipsie (work) mli...@ca.merl.com
Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratory (home) mi...@dosbears.UUCP
George Neville-Neil
>> The Nederlandse Spoorwegen (Netherlands Railroad) is the intercity
>> railroad in Holland. It covers most of the country (though it use to
>> cover more) and has frequent service. The trains run the gamut from
>> Hondekops (dog heads) which are from the 50s ...
>
>Why are they called that? Do they actually look like a dog's head?
>Can you describe the resemblance? I don't suppose you could do it
>justice in ASCII? :^)
Well, I'm not good at the ASCII thing, but they look like Snoopy Heads.
Later,
George
Jym Dyer
on time was the fact that the schedules were subjected to
major cutbacks.
<_Jym_>
Randy Lambertus
>As to the "dogs head", there is a styling used with a "turret top" cab, closest
>US thing i can think of is original UP M10000 articulated sets, only the NS ones
>have longer "noses". Thinks of a TGV profile, with less nose, and the profile
>drops after the cab area. I have pictues of such, but refuse to do ASCII
>graphics....
>
>thanks
>dave pierson |the facts, as accurately as i can manage,
The "dog's head" style can be compared to the "babyface" style common
on some cab units in the U.S in the '50s. The "turret top" is very
similar to the old United Aircraft Turbo Trains. The only difference
is the length of the turret, which is considerably shorter. I spent
two weeks in the Hague this past June, and used to pass the yard
where they were stored every morning on the way to Rijswijk.
I have them all on video and if anyone would like a copy, I could
make one if you send me the blank tape. Of course in NTSC format.
Randy Lambertus Cray Research, Region 4 r...@uk.cray.com
*******************************************************************************
_________u_______
___//()()()() ()()() \____________________________________________________
/\o 52-----//----------- _ | _
| |======== Amtrak |O| ()()()()()()() | ()()()()()() |O| ()()()()()(
\/_________\\___________|_|_________________|_______________|_|____________
/___/o==o\________________________________/-o-\____________________________
===============================================================================
**[]****[]****[]****[]****[]****[]****[]****[]****[]****[]****[]****[]****[]***