Amtrak's Fat, Expensive, And Slow New Trains For The Northeast Corridor
Love this quote by Stephen Jacob Smith in the New York Observer, and the piece he wrote it in:
The Federal Railroad Administration likes to think that America is special, and so our trains have to be special too.
More from the piece:
Like all of Amtrak's trains, the Amtrak Cities Sprinter will be fatter, slower, more expensive and more difficult to maintain than the models that Siemens sells to other countries.The ACS-64, as the new model is known, is based on Siemens' EuroSprinter, but has been modified to meet American regulators' globally-unique crash safety standards. Many railroads across the world order changes to their trains, but the special requirements of the Federal Railroad Administration go far beyond what others ask.
Other countries use high-quality signaling to prevent collisions from happening in the first place, and crumple zones to protect light trains in case it does happen. The FRA, on the other hand, insists that American trains be bulked up to survive crashes with minimal deformation, with all of the inefficiencies that heavier trains that must be specially ordered entail.
The ACS-64 will weigh in at 98 metric tons, while other versions of the EuroSpriner, from Korea to Belgium, clock in at 80 to 88 metric tons. The Belgians paid around $4.6 million per locomotive and the Italians paid around $5.1 million; Amtrak is paying $6.7 million for each loco, despite putting in a much larger order. (Protectionist rules requiring Siemens to build the locomotives in America--the ACS-64 is mostly manufactured in Sacramento--certainly didn't help keep the price tag down.) The ACS-64 can travel 135 miles per hour, but will be limited to 125 in everyday operation. The standard EuroSprinter model, by contrast, does 140, despite having a less powerful engine.
The locomotives will also in all likelihood also be more difficult to maintain than off-the-shelf models, as customized products are by their very nature relatively untested. Amtrak's Acela Express was infamous for its defects and weight. "They decided they wanted to make this the safest train in the world," former Amtrak Chairman Thomas Downs said about the high-speed train. "All my engineers thought the rules were nuts," he said, calling the Acela a "high-velocity bank vault."







Bad government program? Wasteful, inefficient, and underused? I got it! Let's double down!
Grey Ghost at July 10, 2013 6:38 AM
At some point in my lifetime, all vehicle will be required to be able to survive re-entry from Orbit. Nevermind what vehicle.
BigFire at July 10, 2013 10:54 AM
never mind that the physics of crashing and not wearing seatbelts means that the energy is directly transferred to passengers, instead of crumpling the train cars...
actually it sounds like they 'dun know from physics anyway. So, I wonder how much Siemens has given to The Campaign...
Isn;t that how electro-motive stayed in business for so long?
SwissArmyD at July 10, 2013 11:01 AM
Hmm, something's confusing here: Just a couple of weeks ago I read a Financial Times article with the headling "Siemens cheered by changes to US train design rules." The article says the FRA voted (don't have the exact date, but pretty recently) to scrap existing rules requiring trains to withstand a head-on crash with freight trains with no change in shape, and to allow crumple zones instead. Siemens said the new FRA standards were consistent with international ones.
I'm guessing that the article was written or at least researched prior to the referenced FRA decision.
david foster at July 10, 2013 11:14 AM
"never mind that the physics of crashing and not wearing seatbelts means that the energy is directly transferred to passengers..."
Yep. Dale Earnhardt found that out the hard way.
Cousin Dave at July 11, 2013 7:39 AM
Leave a comment