They are great trains, even after 20 years. The frecciarossa 1000 is also a great train and is newer. Talgo is also launching a new train platform soon with the new AVRIL.
I don’t mean Alstom makes terrible trains but little bit of rolling stock diversity would be better. Even Turkey (with I’m pretty sure very less expertise and budget on railroads) have acquired both Europe’s most cost-effective (CAF Cepia) and most technological (Siemens Velaro) high speed trains initially for YHT services.
I like how America and Canada were built on trains, yet even setting up the most basic rail infrastructure now is such a challenge, politicians doing anything on rail is considered newsworthy.
Blame the people. Everyone claims they want one but as soon as one is proposed the people hire every shady lawyer that crawls out of the woodwork to sue over every imaginable issue, real or not. Without loser pays we can no longer have nice things.
@@RS-ls7mm The car infrastructure in our cities have to be bulldozed the same way our cities were bulldozed to eliminate trams and railways. So long as this continent is addicted to cars, both individually and politically, reform is impossible.
@@spaghettiking7312 No offense but this kind of thinking dies when its your house than needs bulldozing. The EU invented rail and has more abandoned rail lines then the US will ever have new rail lines. Its easier and more valid for the EU in every way.
@@RS-ls7mm Err... if you look at your history... Practical rail was a British invention (Britain wasn't in the EU at the time, obviously, and isn't today either)... More importantly, INDIA had a functional main line railway before continental Europe did (built by the British for their own reasons, mind you). More importantly still... the claim that the EU invented rail runs into the problem of Rail predating the EU. Substantially. Now, "railways were invented in Europe" is valid... for a ever so very slightly stretched definition of Europe (and assuming we're talking about practical railways. I make no claim regarding where minecart tracks or wagon-ways, both of which used rails, but weren't really Railways, which are generally defined by the existence of the power being provided by something other than gravity or the muscles of living beings.)
People seriously hated the 2+2 table seats? Those are the best when traveling with either more than 2 people or in relatively empty trains! Perfect to get some work done while your companion sits across, for having a chat, or a meal. Only travelling alone or in overbooked trains are regular seats nicer IMO
@@Lolwutfordawin I remember reading about the trials, and one passenger they "interviewed" said "sitting face to face with a stranger for 2 hours might be fine in Germany, in the US it might get you shot." On a sillier note: Siemens also forgot to provide an english language manual for the Bord Restaurant's coffee machine. So that didn't help the mood.
Want a reliable high speed train like France ? - Dedicated lines for passengers only - Straight curves - Good maintenance Not shitty pendular trains on shitty old tracks to save money. Pretty simple. But maintenance is the key. France prioritised funds to high speeds lines, the flagship. So certains secondary lines are in bad shape, with lot of delays , reduced speeds, canceled trains, lack of drivers..... That's another story.
Japan Railway started using pendulation for their shinkansen with the 500 series and the N700 series. It's amazing how they combine high quality trains and high quality tracks to create a fast and confortable experience. France's tilted track are unconfortable when the train is not at correct speed at each section.
Well fortunately Brightline West is going to be a building a straight-ish high speed right of way (hopefully). If they use the Avelia trains there (which I think they will for timeline reasons), hopefully there will be a lot less shenanigans getting them to work there.
Ummm, no. Brightline West is literally doing the opposite of straight track. They’re building in a highway median with mostly 65 mph speed limits for rubber tire vehicles. Consequently, there are no HSR sections at all on the California side (2/3rds of the trackage). In fact, Brightline’s right of way is so twisty that their permitting documents only indicate two short 150+ mph on the flat desert approach into LV. The entire thing is also single-tracked with a few passing sections to reach the rather meager 45-minute maximum theoretical train frequency. This is exactly why no one ever builds HSR in an existing highway median. If this is ever done they either built the highway with HSR curvature and elevation requirements from the outset, or they build both concurrently. Brightline’s plan is a bit of a dumpster fire and not technically HSR. It’s just fast-ish “highER speed rail”.
Not going to happen given the US legal system. Every time one is proposed it collapses under the weight of frivolous lawsuits. Imaginary "sacred" grounds, not in my back yard, special interest, union corruption, ..... Without loser pays this country isn't going to change.
And overambitiousness. A very Europe-specific problem is also international certification. When Czech Railways were buying their own Pendolinos (class 680 derived from the FS ETR 460) the railroad was like "it's so cool man high speed rail and it can go like 230km/h and we'll have a whole new category of trains, and you can go from Brno to Berlin without switching trains". The 680s got certified for travel in Slovakia and Austria, but not Germany. And on the international routes there's only Pendolinos going to Slovakia because trains to Vienna are handled by rented Railjets. The other service is a border-to-border express train (Františkovy Lázně - Pilsen - Prague - Ostrava) but Pendolinos are not common, most trains on the route are just regular express trains pulled by Vectrons or 362s. All main railroad corridors in the country are limited to 160km/h at best, no track goes above that. The main corridors are good, Praha-Pardubice is pretty much a straight line, the rest are worse as they're pretty much drawn along a river, the main problem is with outdated railroad classification dating back to the early 90s. And nowadays, the tracks are being Also, there were 160km/h locomotives by the time, so the speed advantage was dubious. Passenger-comfort wise not, because the existing locomotives were technologically outdated before they were made, the replacement locomotive was still nowhere because the heavy industry giant developing it got privatized and nearly collapsed, and the carriages were not even air conditioned. Pendolinos aren't being replaced even though the sets will turn 20 in some years, the railroad still counts on them, instead it seems to focus on updating and replacing other rolling stock, I can't blame them because a lot of it is nearly half a decade old. TLDR: Czech state railroad ordered 7 sets of high speed tilting trains that even after 20 years can't run any faster than regular trains because of outdated tracks and track legislation and the government and its appointed railroad officials overpromised before they could deliver
putting "wings" on pantographs to stabilize them isn't as goofy as you might think, it's pretty standard procedure actually. pretty much all the types i worked on had them in one form or another
Problem is if they tried to take as much money from people as car lobby it'd be more noticable since it'd be mostly on ticket and transport prices, while car lobby succesfully offloaded the entire infrastructure cost of roads to taxpayers while keeping the profits.
Kinda hard to maintain a domestic train industry when the federal government is doing everything in their power to destroy the domestic steel and oil industries.
The year is 2123. The train lobby is as influential as General Motors with in the twentieth century. All of the streets have been ripped up and replaced with rails. People need to walk five miles to their nearest level crossing, then wait 1 hour for a twenty mile long precision scheduled megatrain to pass before they can cross. All of this just to get to the CVS across the street. No one should ever be as successful as GM again. They totally claim 80%+ of public space for their product.
Well, then we'd have to deal with badge engineered trains. The Buick LaCountry with 4400 HP built on the same platform as the Chevrolet Pelvic Traction making 1500 HP and featuring a Fisher-Price playset interior.
Fun fact: the Liberty is the first Avelia out precisely because SNCF/French Gov delayed their order of TGV M (Avelia Duplex). SNCF has been "downsizing" the TGV fleet for the past decade or so (for reasons I won't get into), which has negatively impacted Alstom and its suppliers. Your whole argument wrt supporting the rolling stock industry is on point.
Well, SNCF ordered 115 TGV M (Avelia [Horizon]) trainsets. That is certainly not a decline in numbers. Especially, since TGV M can hold up to 740 passengers on a 200m trainset.
@@deepsteep4748 hence the quotes around "downsizing". The fleet size relative to the size of the HS network is on a downwards trends. SNCF recently scrapped the last Sud-Est units (109 built), Atlantique units are out too (27 remaining out of 105), 1st gen Eurostars are mostly gone (8 remaining out of 36). The peak was probably in the mid 2000s and there hasn't been a one-for-one replacement since then. The number of **seats** is fairly consistent but on much fewer trains. It **is** an issue because some destinations have fewer trains per day, but SNCF can still claim to offer the same service. There's a massive loss of convenience on some routes. But it's a topic far too complex for a TH-cam comment 😅
@@remicardona_poly Ok, you are right on that one. At least, this 115 train badge is similar to the numbers of the first Generations, with much more seats per train, tho. But considering the growth of the LGV-network since the 1980s, it should be more trainsets and i certainly hope, that there is an upwards trend in fleet size for the future. Thanks for the clarification!
@@remicardona_poly for several reasons you are wrong, first of all the retirement of the TGV Sud Est (355 pax per train) and Atlantique (454 pax per train) have been replaced by the TGV Euroduplex 3UFC (556 pax per train) proves that the available seats are increasing, moreover the first generation of TGV Duplex is being renovated to gain 50 pax per train. Secondly, Eurostar trains do not belong to sncf but to Eurostar directly and have been replaced by Siemens velaro trains, which also have greater capacity.
Maybe you could show on a map exactly where the most decrepit NE Corridor rail sections are located. So that everyone would know where rail infrastructure upgrades are most urgently needed. It would be great if the entire NE Corridor could be height upgraded to allow for double-decker train cars to run along that route. Maybe even allow for running a double-decker Auto Train between the Boston area & Florida, for example. Similar track improvements to what Brightline Florida has recently finished upgrading.
The biggest thing stopping amtrak from running superliner cars through NYC is the tunnels, they are too small. That's why amtrak uses the viewliner cars on its long distance trains that go through NYC.
There's a few Very Expensive bits that have to get redone like bridges and tunnels, and you can't incrementally roll out bilevel cars if you can't run them at least from NYC to DC.
Note: Avelia is a generic Alstom brand for all its high speed trains. The Liberty is one version of Avelia. Horizon is the version which SNCF will brand as TGV-M. There is the Avelia Pendolino etc. From what I read, the Liberty has its locos come from the Averia Horizon development but the coaches come from the AGV cars, without traction motors. The Horizon locos are designed to haul double deck TGVs while AGVs are single desk and this explains why the locos are weird shape compared to the coaches. (AGVs have only sold to 1 customer in Itarly). The other important aspect: Amtrak specified tilting which TGVs don't have except for Avelia Pendolinos. (and not all Pendolinos have it, only the slower models because tilting has to be disabled for high speed trains) The aluminium car shells were allowed to come from Europe (since no expertise in USA anymore), but the rest has to be made in USA, so Alstom had to source components here so in the end, it ends up being a totally new train that needs totally new testing. part of the thinking on the tilting is to help reduce lateral force on tracks in a curce. The heavier the train, the mode sideways force on rails in a curve that can push track sideways. By tilting, it at least reduce the weight of the car that is pushed to the side in curce (but not the bogie which remains steady on tracks). proper track inclination in curves eliminates the need for any tilting and greatly reduces cost of train sets (and increase reliability and comfort. It is a HUGE challenge to tilt a train without maing people sick due to any delay between starting curve and starting of tilting. (and vice versa at end of curve).
@@jacktattersall9457 In is a problem in so far as a train developped with X compoents in mid now has to be redevelopped with totally new components that the designers did not think of or test or choose. In montréal, when CDPQ impose its REM on the city without consultations, it knew Bombarder was to go bankrupt (since itw aas the one who imposed unsurvivable coditions when it helped recapitalise it) so it ordered trains not only from Alstom, but from an Indian production line that was already producing models for another city and CDPQ chose the exact same trains with very few modifications in order to reduce risk. Because it was technically not a govrnment contract, (even though it is government pension plan)_ it escaped any Made in Canada provisions but was quite cirticised for it. So there is an advantage of taking an off the sehglf product and not insisting they chjange everything to contain enough local content.
Hello Alan, I live in Watertown, MA, a suburb of Boston. I wanted to tell you about the abhorrent transit situation that the nearby city of Lynn has found itself in. The city has been building more densely around its commuter rail station, however, the MBTA has closed the station due to the disrepair of the building, even though it was built in 1991. A new station will not be done until 2030, which is absolutely ridiculous. The city has urged the MBTA to build a temporary platform, which will take 12-18 months. Otherwise, they have to take a shuttle bus to Swampscot for the commuter rail or a shuttle to Revere for the Blue Line, which will take a long amount of time during rush hour. It's ridiculous that Lynn, which is the same distance to Boston and Brooklyn is to Manhattan, has no accessible transit to get to Boston. This is compounded by the fact of the large Latino and Black population in Lynn. This has also caused economic problems as building contractors to have densified around the station will suffer since young commuters will not move in without transit. This has led to a grocery store cancelling its plan to move into one of the buildings. I wanted to spread the news about this. If you want to see the full article, it's in the June 25th Boston Globe written by Joan Vennochi.
WOW. I’m in Medford and hate the T but hasn’t heard this.. 20 years to rebuild a station that was only 30 years old? Only in Massachusetts… disgraceful
Heyy Alan, nice video man! The Avelia platform actually is a platform of trains that exceed 200 km/h (125mph) and comprises of the: Avelia Liberty, Avelia Horizon, Avelia AGV, Avelia Pendolino and Avelia Speedelia. The problem for Amtrak was that they wanted to combine the Avelia TGV series with the AGV and Pendolino. Also Amtrak wanted an Pendolino derived train at first but wasn't allowed back then by the FRA and needed powercars.
That’s the problem. Amtrak bought HSR trains without having any HSR infrastructure. That’s like trying to run Shinkansen trains on the normal network. It just won’t work, or work very well. Some people might point out that this “doesn’t work” because the Shinkansen runs on an entirely separate network from the regular trains, and the Amtrak uses regular main lines. Well so does ICE and the TGV, expect both DB and SNCF networks are up to par so that wherever the HSR trains need to run on normal mainlines, those mainlines can properly handle the HSR trains. That’s what’s missing for Amtrak.
The better choice for NEC tracks is Pendolino, that is designed to run up to 155 Mph commercial speed and maximise the speed on winding alignments. You need to change your FRA regulation to a less European like stringent ones...
This is objectively untrue. The NEV is 50+% 125 mph track. The actual problem is that a good chunk of it is old and needs repairs which are already budgeted for in the Infrastructure Bill. But this is not the problem that Alstom is having. Siemens dies just fine on the NEC. The problem is Alstom’s own disorganized nature. They’re just not a serious company anymore with all the cuts that they gave been doing. Their French contracts have dwindled in recent years and they simply don’t have the money to operate as they used to . But instead of downsizing, they’re doing sneaky internal cuts and trying to keep an outward facade if “business as usual”. You can see how well that denial is working out for them.
@@DanTheCaptain A high-speed train without having HS infrastructure - that is actually the principal idea behind the Pendolino, that it is a train which can go faster on legacy infrastructure. It's not as fast as a "real" HS train on a completely new, properly built HS corridor, but it's a good compromise between speed, investment cost, and "time to market".
Also love that you are wearing a Conrail shirt whilst explaining how this mess was made. Conrail fixing the NE rail nightmare leads to irony with us talking about fixing Amtrak.
The majority of the defense budget is also corporate welfare for the weapons manufacturers. Military boondoggles come and go without anyone batting an eye at billions of dollars going up in smoke. But if a train project goes over budget everyone loses their minds. You get wall to wall negative media coverage, conservative politicians bash the project to get votes and it sets back the US rail industry by 30 years.
Only really by purchasing from those companies. Yes, the government did "bail out" GM, but it made money from that. Fiat bailed out Chrysler. Ford did not need bailout money.
Throwing money at domestic train manufacturers is exactly the mistake we made in Canada. Bombardier was the world's largest rolling stock manufacturer, and the Canadian government favoured them for Canadian rail orders. In the absence of any real competition, Bombardier increasingly produced subpar products. And although Canadian railways still purchased their stuff, that's not enough to support a large worldwide manufacturer, and they started falling behind on the world stage. Now we no longer have any Canadian rail manufacturers since Bombardier bought all the other ones, and now they've been bought by Alstom.
Don't forget the only reason Bombardier's rail business got as big as it did was because they bought both Hawker-Siddeley's rail division, the Montreal Car Company, and UTDC. So in typical Canadian fashion multiple companies became just one both thus reducing competition and making everything worse in general. It's impressive our bus industry still exists although Orion is gone.
That’s pretty much what happened to the UK too. Our domestic manufacturers one by one closed down, and now they’re Alstom, Siemens and Hitachi factories instead. All the new train classes in the UK are based on imported platforms, which the politicians say will get them built quicker. And they are. But then they have 2-5 years of bugs and testing and retrofits to get them in proper working order after that, which is more time in total than would’ve been spent on a BREL or Metro-Cammell train end to end.
At least in Europe, every country had its own companies. Austria had SGP and Elin, East German AEG factory was ranemed LEW Hennigsdorf after WW2, Italy had (until very recently) Breda and Fiat, ASEA was Swedish, Czechoslovakia had Škoda (still exists but they don't make locomotives anymore), Poland's Pafawag still exists I think. A lot of them went under either Siemens or, ultimately, Alstom. LEW Hennigsdorf is probably what underwent the most acquisitions, first it was bought back by AEG, which then merged into ADTranz, which got bought by Bombardier, which got bought by Alstom. ASEA too, merged with Swiss Brown Boveri into ABB, then ADTranz, and so on.
@@segarallychampionship702 Notice how the rigging and bending of EU procurement rules conveniently ignored in France and Germany lead to two very large rail manufacturers coincidentally one German and one French. I think CAF, Stadler and Talgo won't survive long in their present form.
And we have John Major to thank for that diabolical state of affairs with his ill-fated rail privatisation, then coupled with the UK government slavishly following EU Procurement rules conveniently ignored elsewhere in Europe (looking at France and Germany).
@@aalan4296 Alstrom owns stuff in Germany (and other places) and with Siemens it's reverse. Stadler will survive if only because it's propped up by the Swiss themselves -- and it's not like they aren't successfully exporting, either. It would really be a mistake to under-estimate what they can bring to the table given the utter paradise that is the Swiss train system and they built pretty much all of it in often very flexible and ingenious ways. They're not afraid of single track, for example, or putting two pantographs on a train and have them run on AC on one section, and DC another.
@@aoeuable The Swiss require narrower pantographs than what is common elsewhere in Europe (presumably due to tunnel clearance), so some ÖBB 1116 locomotives have three pantographs
In about every 50 comments someone asks about the mismatched side profiles. Short answer is they have always been like that since the beginning when decision was made to pair power cars with trailing cars from 2 different series. The power cars do not tilt so no reason for tapered sides. The trailing cars do tilt so if it makes people happier consider that the sides align at full tilt. It's basic form follows function. An early CGI rendering by Alstom did show a transitional fairing piece at the back of the power car to blend the profiles. Hopefully one of these days Alstom or Amtrak will explain why it was not included in the final production design. I suspect the reason for omitting that fairing piece was that power car and trailing cars are already roughly the same width or at least close enough that any deviation has no effect on wind resistance. At their belt line the trailing car may be slightly wider than the power car however above the belt line the profiles of the trailing cars taper inward and become narrower than the power car. An additional fairing on its own could not resolve the profile difference unless the shell of the power car also tapered inward to match. Altering the shape of the power car shell could have altered its structural design and create a chain reaction of parts and pieces that no longer fit within the reduced shell envelope. All that would fly in the face of Amtrak's goal of using "off the shelf" components as much as possible to avoid repeating the mistakes of the original Acela. Perhaps the additional fairing would have added unnecessary weight and there were benefits to performance in omitting it. I hate to quote Elon Musk but there is an old adage he likes to repeat (certainly copied from someone else) going something like "The best part is no part. Sometimes the best design is no design. Sometimes the best solution is no solution." BTW - that did not go so well for Elon in omitting the flame diverter below Starship but in concept it holds true. At first the mismatch bothered me but then I began to respect its aesthetic honesty. I love Amtrak's "British Rail style" 2-tone color scheme for the new Acelas but it would help to draw attention away from the mismatched side profiles if the power cars adopted a more solid color and they did not even bother trying to extend the lower blue stripe across. Extending that stripe across just highlights the discrepancy. Instead I've always thought things would look better if the slab sides of the power cars were the same blue as the roof and current large blue Acela name and logo changed to white on a blue background. Now everything would be fixed, The mind just sees a mostly blue power car trailed by blue and grey trailing cars. Even as they stand now I think the new Acelas make for an incredibly attractive set. Much more attractive than the Siemens Velaros in my opinion. The Alstom power cars have a distinct and modern design unlike the Siemens Velaros that just look too generic and bulbous to me. The only thing that really bothers me now on the new Acelas is noticing that the car numbers on the power cars and trailing cars do not match in size. They have to at least make those match!
Not just that but the NPN and Norfolk corridors due to them being extremely straight. The Acelas won't run on them but at least 110-125 mph service with sprinters
New Haven Railroad had plans to electrify the Hartford line installing catenary bridges all the way to MP 3.5, Benton St. the plan was scrapped during the depression. If you watch a cab ride video they are still there, but wire was never strung.
@@jackchen7003 most main lines in Virginia were purchsed by the state. And you can put wires above rails, in fact freight companies can benefit from it. And yes, double stack trains could be electric too.
As a former railroad maintenance worker in the Northeast Corridor, I will say this: high-speed will NEVER work as long as passenger trains have to share trackage with freight & commuter trains. The Northeast Corridor also has way too many curves to built up speeds, and we could never understand why they chose to purchase a trainset we had never tested in the U.S.; we had already had been using ABB locomotives (we called them "Meatballs") which were doing a good job, and I myself, had ridden the XP2000 (ABB) and the ICE trains (Siemens) during excursion runs during the days when passenger usage was limited to employees and liked them just fine. During that Bombardier test runs, there were several of us from Amtrak who actually worked hand-in hand with Bombardier and Alstom, but when we reported problems with the brakes and acceleration/deceleration and refused to sign off on the inspection paperwork one of the trainsets for a presentation to the public and media (the "good 'ole dog & pony show") because of the still-present problem with brake pads wearing out too soon, we were all told that were were no longer needed by Bombardier, and were all sent back to Amtrak. Whoever signed off the paperwork remains a mystery to me, but in a sad kind of way, I did feel some satisfaction when the problem with the brakes was finally exposed a few years later, and ALL Acela trains were taken out of service for many, many months. The Bombardier/Alstom locomotives they used to pull the Northeast Regional trains made up with Budd cars? WE HATED THOSE LOCOMOTIVES! They were pigs because the nose of those locomotives was not designed for the 480V cabling system used to mate up with Budd cars because the connectors were too short, so we would have to add an adapter cable & secure them with cable-ties too keep the cables from separating & losing power when going around curves. Not a fun job in freezing, wet weather, or when you are up to your waist in snow between the locomotive & passenger cars. Lol, Amtrak would be better off if they went back to GG-1's and Budd cars. Add a caboose for a little nostalgia and generate some extra money; train buffs & rail fans would line up to ride one. So would I.😉
@10:00, both GE Transportation (now owned by Wabtec) and EMD (now owned by Caterpillar) are US train/locomotive makers. Both of them made mainstays for Amtrak, GE with the GE Genesis and GE E60, EMD with AEM-7 and the F40PH. EMD actually built a competitor to the Siemens Charger based of a design that they used for the LIRR called EMD F125 which ultimately Amtrak didn't choose (but was chosen by the Metrolink).
Wanna hear a bit of irony? The X2000 sets just recently received an overhaul that extended their already 30 year long career. Even more ironic, the old locomotives that the AEM-7s were based on (And also their even older predecessors of the same model) are still running in regular service.
As a Brit I feel there are so many parallels with our infrastructure and industry and the US'. Our railways run pretty fast and frequently with hardly any HS track but management hasn't always been the best leading to decades of underinvestment
In the grand scheme of things we do pretty well with rolling stock, especially now that the Pacers have gone. The EC/WC mainlines have some great trains running on them
I think Amtrak is only now coming out of its "table scraps" mentality in regard to equipment procurement, so time will tell how this second-gen Acela experience goes.
The other reason why the original Acela's were called pigs was that the train cars were built 4" too wide, so the tilt mechanisms could not be used to their full capabilities.
Looking at what others are doing, taking bits and pieces that aren’t really compatible, trying to do it as cheap as possible, and hobbling new equipment with ancient infrastructure resulting is a much costlier and less efficient option is a VERY American thing to do!
Its not ENTIRELY fair to criticize Clinton for Amtrak's woes in the 1990s. While no routes may have OPENED then, he WAS responsible (or at least in office for) the extension of electrification to Boston and the introduction of Acela, together with some associated track improvements and grade separations. These took place in 2000, and Clinton left office in January 2001. Amtrak also got the Viewliner I fleet, the first Talgos (though that was with some state funding), some additional Superliners, the HHP-8 (for whatever that was worth), rebuilds for a large part of the AEM-7 fleet, and the start of the Genesis series. All of this took place either during Clinton or shortly afterwards (due to lag for construction time).
I use the TGV a few times a year and I'm always impressed by it's technology, ease of use and performance. SNCF didn't try to cut corners, they knew that infrastructure was important to the country and worked with Alstom to build some of the greatest trains on the planet. Having designated lines for HSR has been our downfall... until that happens, it won't matter much WHAT trains are used.
With Stadler now in Salt Lake City complying with the “Buy American Act” you could had some “Girunos”, the IC train we use in Switzerland or maybe buyed some Siemens BR 182. Both great trains. 👍
Budd had some of the world's best rolling stock tech at their peak. Nowadays, to see trains built with the latest version of that tech, you gotta go to Latin America or Asia...
after seeing this comment i just found out the budd company only went defunt in 2014. we had time to include them in modernization plans and let's be real, anything they built probably would have been 10x more reliable than some french bs.
It sure would be a source of encouragement for American manufacturing if someone would buy up Budd’s IP, find any engineers still around from their glory days, and start up the company again.
@@noahwilliams8918 I doubt the IP would be worth much these days, the last licenses they sold were in the late 80s, a generation ago. A lot has changed in the railway world since.
Hi Alan, I find this video very confusing and not as well done as you usually make them. And I wanted to point out a few problems. A : The first Acela isn’t exactly a TGV Duplex locomotive, but more of a hybrid between a TGV locomotive and a HHP-8 locomotive, which themselves are Alstom BB 36000 derivatives in order to respond to Amtrak’s low cost demand. B : I don’t exactly understand the “No excuse” part, you say they have no excuses but at the same time you justify why it takes so long, saying there’s nothing fundamentally wrong, because it’s a new product, and that they’re not used to working with Amtrak. Clearly, if Amtrak wanted a proven tilting model, they could have gone with the Alstom AGV, but it was probably too expensive. And this is where the problem is, Amtrak can’t really expect to have stuff done in a short amount of time without putting in the money, rolling stocks are as much about the rail than the trains themselves. And you can’t have a cheap train done right away because the track needs a tilting train, so it asked for a new development, because cheap high speed tilting trains don’t really exist, hence Alstom having to put out something new. C : “Good manufacturers” And putting Siemens as one of them. It is quite ironic to criticise Alstom for delays and put Siemens as a counter example when clearly the Charger locomotive series have proven that Siemens isn’t exactly as transparent nor reliable about their own products, what’s more ironic is to put that specific locomotive as the thumbnail. There are many things that could make Siemens not such a good manufacturer especially if we take the history of both companies in HSR. The TGV PSE survived a bombing attack in 1983 going at 100mph while not derailing, it unfortunately killed 6 people because of the explosion. On the other hand the ICE 1 train derailment of 1998 killed over 80 people and simply because of its own design. Overall I’m sorry Alan, but I really don’t get the point of this video but mere French bashing, because you disqualified your own point about it having no excuses for the new Acela being late. And at the same time you compared Alstom to other companies without really good arguments about them. However I fully support the idea of renewing the US market to recreate american rolling stock companies. And I hope you correct the video and give us more quality content like you’ve done in the past. EDIT : Actually with deeper research through the technology of Alstom within the US, the problem that you pointed out Alan is even more out of context. The train modelisation is very particularly a problem to the Avelia and, no, others companies DIDN'T have to model it or at least as deep as the Avelia. Why do you ask? Because they're not tilting trains. Why does it matter? Because hydrolics have to prepare for curves as they can't take it instantaneously so they need a more precise model because the locomotive, pantograph and cars all have to be coordinated. All that while being safe. If you know any French explanation at 52:00 : th-cam.com/video/10SxyxAOlz4/w-d-xo.html
Yeah, citation required for your debunked fantom “problem with the Chargers”. We’ve had those in operation for about a decade now with none of the issues you foamers claim materializing. They’ve had about the same teething issues that all new equipment has. They’ve dealt with those three same that all manufacturers do. So what is your assertion actually based on here? I understand that hating the Chargers has become basically a foamer meme at this point, but you’ll have to come up with better evidence than anonymous foamer blog posts if you want anyone to believe you.
In terms of long distance train stock issues. In 2021 I took the California Zephyr out of Chicago the observation car AC went out the first day and they tried unsuccessfully to get it working during the break at Denver. 2022, the train from Chicago to San Antonio didn't have an observation car and for the most part we were confined to our seats.
It really, REALLY, sucks that there hasn't been any progress (except the Acela project) on high speed rail. Yes, Brightline is playing their game of chess in building HSR infrastructure and so California HSR, but considering how complicated is built any HSR and building or improving existing rail is greatly disappointing.
@@FinnKeehan It doesn’t matter where it came from, what country it’s from or who made it, these trains are still american because of the rails they are running on. also, european train horns are equally as loud as a K5LA, trust me
Maybe you should talk about the upcoming replacements for third-rail services on Amtrak like the Hudson Line, which has third-rail to a little past Croton-Harmon as it is also ran by Metro North commuter services, though they unfortunately use a different third rail type and is incompatible. If I remember correctly the trainset replacing the Amfleet and P32AC-DMs will be called the Airofleet, using a Siemens Charger variant called the ALC-42E which isn't actually dual-mode capable, and instead uses a battery car in tow, as it really only needs it to get out of the tunnels, a missed opportunity.
the ALC-42E as designed will not be a dual mode for Empire Service duty. it'll be a diesel-electric locomotive on one end, with a battery-electric cab car on the other. they (rather stupidly) will not use third rail at all as a result. also, the metro north third rail is incompatible with the amtrak third rail used on the hellgate line. metro north third rail (which runs all the way to Poughkeepsie) uses under-running third rail with wider, shorter shoes, while amtrak uses narrower, longer over-running shoes. as a result the P32AC-DM's only run on third rail until they're out of the tunnels; they run on diesel power everywhere else. running on metro north track (such as into grand central) requires modifying the shoe mechanisms for that service.
@@francistheodorecatte makes me wonder what they will do with the lakeshore limited. will they use the ALC-42Es to pull the train out of the tunnels? and will it use battery power of third-rail?
We definitely need to invest in Brookville Equipment, the Liberty platform is an excellent product, and their BL36PH seems just as good. Bring back American rollingstock manufacturering, we need it!
The ICE would be an interesting Train Sets for Amtrak but The Eschede Derailment happened, when the Maintenance Team decided that cutting costs on critical maintenance like Fatigue Detectors and using Dual Block Wheels that caused the deaths of 101 out of more than 400 people.
Dear Alan, would love to hear more on the specific ‘points’ where the North East Corridor is so hard to model. Curious to what kind of switches and interlocking Amtrak is faced with. I gather it has to do with speed restrictions, allowed level of tilt and maybe even differences in rail profiles. As you showed an Acela processing through a level crossing, I say that’s a main problem. For safe and sustainable high speed rail corridors one needs to up the entire track system and as an example, take out the level crossing wherever possible and feasible. If I look at French or German high speed track, the entire roadbed has seen a makeover. It isn’t just the sleepers, where they are replaced by a kind of concrete channel roadbed, secured on a much more elaborate foundation than a ballast roadbed. Even the rail chairs have been significantly changed and improved, sound deadening is incorporated and the track itself is monitored continuously for maintenance purposes. That in itself entails a different approach to high speed transit. Time for the US to get back on track! Cheerio
I really *do* like the left-right headlight blinking trains do when crossing roads in the US, though. But yeah if you see an ICE taking a level crossing in Germany then it's because it's driving from one factory it's built in to another, or something like that. Regional service, usually using something like a Bombardier Talent, should see the most crossings as metro systems are again highly grade-separated because of the sheer frequency of trains. S-Bahns will have a mixture of both, only grade-separated on high-throughput roads.
The station along the waterfront in New London CT comes to mind. I'm not sure it would make much sense to build grade separation there anyways, since its built on and between some seriously sharp curves in the track. Maybe New London just needs a new alignment/ station? Also, can anyone explain the slowness between roughly Bridgeport CT and Rye NY? Is it just the number of curves or is there something else going on with the track?
The only modelling I can think of is vehicle dynamics to make sure train behaves on track as conditions change and track, wheels, suspension wear to limits. You don't need this to insure safe operation. Periodic and/or continual real world testing would suffice.
We in Poland have ALSTOM-FIAT Pendolino trains (max 250 km/h). Currently, a nationwide high-speed railway system is under construction and domestic companies such as PESA and NEWAG are targeted as the main supplier of trains for this investment.
I feel we should also incentive other, non rail based manufacturing companies (Ford, Boeing, etc.) to research and develop their own rolling stock built in the U.S., in order to diversify the ranges of these companies. But until then, I'll continue to stick with Team Siemens since they're providing reliable and luxurious railcars and locomotives to plenty of transit agencies in North America.
Why would you want to take a company that has technical prowess in one discipline and get them to take a cash grab and make a substandard product in something they have no idea how to make properly?
I'm french, so I'm obviously biased, but we do some nice rolling stock too. Especially on the light rail, but even the TGV is oretty nice. That said, I'm indeee not exactly convinced Alstom was the best designer for the north East corridor tracks. We are testing pendolino construction, others have been far better than us for longer. Also, sorry for the cars being late :
The Corridor is inadequate for High Speed Rail and equipment, the current Acela's don't even run well on it, the government doesn't care to upgrade it and never will, unless people really want to fight for it, it will never happen.
That’s nonsense. The NEC is about an average HSR corridor by EU standards. I understand that people want to be all edgy with their “America Bad” criticism, but it’s genuinely misplaced here. If you remove corridors like the NEC from HSR consideration then only four countries in Europe still have HSR.
@@TohaBgood2 No the NEC is nowhere near an average HSR corridor by EU standards. In Europe, Spain, France, Germany, and Italy have networks, Belgium, the Netherlands and UK have HSR lines. With only Spain and France with true large scale continuous HSR networks. The NEC is a Frankenstein's creature, a mash-up of many different qualities of track. And the lack of consistency is a real issue. Any rolling stock happily frolicking on European tracks would have a much harder time on the NEC.
@@KyrilPG Nope. Only France, Germany, Spain, and Italy have actual HSR track. Benelux and the UK have HSR stubs built by the French so that they can spread their TGV products. The actual rail in those countries still tops out at 125 mph at best. And virtually no HSR services except the ones in Spain run exclusively on a single LGV line. If what you said were actually trued than French TGV would lines would only be able to sell you tickets for a half dozen destination pairs. In reality all of these services travel significant portions of their routes on conventional freight track. I encourage you to look at the TGV's fleet average in France. Why does the Acela beat the TGV network on average speeds on some years? How would that even be possible? Do TGV trains politely hit the breaks as soon as they reach 125-150 mph so that they don't embarrass their American cousin?
@@TohaBgood2 Gosh, are you a troll or something? The TGV's run mostly on dedicated tracks. For the main and most traveled destinations, TGV's run only a short distance on legacy tracks before entering the true high-speed backbone lines rated for either 300 or 320kph. And these legacy tracks are not specifically freight tracks, they are usually 160kph legacy tracks and often 220kph legacy upgraded tracks. The innermost city tracks run at the local service's speed and sometimes faster, like the 220 and 180kph tracks in Paris suburbs next to the RER before accessing the HSL. The "average speed" you are mentioning takes the whole number of TGV *services* from their origin to their furthest destination, including the "collector" services that run at legacy speeds with multiple stops far from a high-speed line, not counting the ridership nor the fact full speed ones are operated by double length double deckers while the frequent stop destinations far reaching off the high-speed lines are mostly served by single length, single deck trains. That heavily skews the absolute number for average speed for the overall service. It's like saying NY's subway has an overall 12 minute frequency because some obscure branches have a half hourly or hourly service that tanks the whole average when most riders experience a 3 minute frequency. A Paris > Toulouse currently runs only 1/4th of the distance on legacy upgraded tracks, while the first 3/4th are run at full speed on dedicated tracks. The vast majority of TGV riders travel between major destinations that are HSL equipped all the way, with only the city center access run on legacy tracks. A Paris to Bordeaux takes 2h and 4 minutes for roughly 600km with half hourly service at peak, or Paris to Strasbourg in 1h45 for 500km, Paris Marseille in 3h05 for 800+km, Lyon to Marseille in 1h40 for almost 400km, etc. My father uses the Paris Reims TGV regularly, it's 42 minutes and apart for a short distance on legacy tracks to access the HSL, it is run on dedicated tracks. The lines in UK, Belgium and the Netherlands are true high-speed lines but the ones in Benelux are not even to the highest French or Spanish standards as they don't have bypass tracks around cities to form a continuous network. HSL 1, 2 and 4 in Belgium run at 300kph and HSL 3 is runs at 260kph, but they are separated trunks, like most European HSL's outside of France and Spain. HSL Zuid in the Netherlands is more consistent and is the extension of the Belgian HSL 4 but is still cut in two by Rotterdam, lacking a bypass. The Belgian and Dutch railways don't use rolling stock fast enough to run at the full speed these lines allow, only Thalys, Eurostar and ICE trains run at full speed on these lines. Yet, they are still true high-speed lines. Just look for pictures of one of the Belgian HSL's and you'll see that they are very different from the NEC tracks. There's not even a single mile of true high-speed track in the NEC, and if you want to compare something correctly, compare the NEC with another corridor or the real LGV or LAV *network* , or the Köln Frankfurt corridor, not the "reach" of a service. What tanks the average speed of the overall TGV *service* are the numerous small Alpine destinations where the TGV's run slow on old tracks for a rather short distance but a long time after having run most of the distance at steady full speed on dedicated tracks. Like compare with the Paris Bordeaux corridor, where certain services have a 280+ kph average speed, from station to station. Or the Calais Marseille corridor, which is like 99% on dedicated high-speed tracks. In no way, shape or form does the NEC can be considered similar to the TGV or AVE networks. Comparing a strict corridor to an entire system with far reaching services is just bad faith. At least compare corridor to corridor, and then you'll find a vastly different result.
Imagine how much money we would have for infrastructure that's actually good for society if we didn't throw so much money at propping up car-culture, cheap gas, and suburban sprawl
Canada also at one time had local rail car producers with Hawker-Siddeley and the Montreal Car Company both of which eventually were bought by Bombardier whose rail division is now owned by Alstom meaning Canada doesn't have any local rail producers anymore. There was once also UTDC which was crown corporation owned by the Ontario Government which developed the technology you see used today in Vancouver, it was sold off to Bombardier in the 90's and the tech became the Innovia line of rolling stock. Fortunately Canada's bus industry has stuck around with New Flyer, Nova, and MCI although there was a fourth in Orion Bus Industries but they were shut down years ago when Daimler got out of the bus business.
Thx for putting this together! It's a complicated subject and this is the best I've seen so far. WSJ is not a balanced story. It will be a good train once it's running.
The short service life of Amtrak trains (edit to clarify: specifically the Acelas, but also the AEM-7's) is puzzling, especially when there's so little capital to go around. The X2000 set that the Swedish state railways loaned to Amtrak in the early 1990's is still in service in Sweden. There's a refurbishment program in progress for the X2000's and there's no plan to take them out of service for the foreseeable future. There are many newer high(-ish) speed EMU's in service now too of course, but the X2000's are still doing their thing. That isn't a particularly long service life either though. The Swedish Rc4 locomotive that was loaned to Amtrak in _1976_ (no. 1166) for the trials that led to the AEM-7 is _also_ still in service in Sweden. The Rc locomotives are gradually being withdrawn from passenger services and replaced with quicker-accelerating EMU's, but there's still several hundred of them around. The oldest ones still in service (Rc2, 100 freight service units geared for 135 km/h (84 mph) delivered 1969-1975) recently got a big upgrade program and are now designated Rd2 - they'll stay in freight service for many years to come. I also expect Rc locomotives to keep handling all sleeper services for the foreseeable future. On poor or lower priority railways the rolling stock can last even longer; the Roslagsbanan narrow gauge commuter service that was under constant threat of shutdown in the 1970's and 1980's had self-powered railcars from the 1910's in service well into the 1990's. (Fortunately this service has received substantial investments since and it's being expanded again.)il
@@davidsixtwo Meant to say "short service life of the Acelas". But still, the AEM-7's are long gone but their Swedish counterparts from the early 1970's are chugging along. The oldest ones still in service (Rc2, produced 1969-1975) have had significant upgrades, but the ones contemporary with the AEM-7 are mostly in original configuration still.
@@renhanxueit’s because of the backwards way funding works in the US. It’s very difficult to convince our shortsighted government to spend big money on things with long term benefits like new rail infrastructure, because why should any House rep approve a project they’re potentially unlikely to see the end of if it’s not in an election year when they need the votes. It’s easier to convince them to buy a flashy new train set every few years because “oh wow it’s new and I get to be the congressperson who inaugurates it before the end of my term.” It’s stupid. And it sucks. But that is our unfortunate reality at the moment here.
@@renhanxue It's an interesting argument, but I've never heard anyone boast about which rail service has the oldest trains, at least outside of nostalgia. When Germany or Switzerland get a new fleet, it seems to be received well.
@@davidsixtwo It's not boasting, rather the opposite. Of course newer trains would be better, but railways are underfunded here too, and refurbishing old trains is cheaper - at least in terms of capex - than buying new ones. In an ideal world we would've built actual high-speed alignments and the X2000's would at best be relegated to peripheral lines. Instead they're still doing their thing on the highest traffic intercity services in the country. What I'm saying is that Amtrak seems to want more than it can really afford.
Hearing that the current acela's are being replaced after 20 years and the new ones potentially lasting the same time is odd, being from the UK. We have fleets that generally get pushed through to 35-40 years generally. Raises the question, how long should rolling stock generally be in service for?
The X2000 set that the Swedish state railways loaned to Amtrak in the early 1990's is still in service in Sweden. There's a refurbishment program in progress for the X2000's and there's no plan to take them out of service. That's baby tier though; the Swedish Rc4 locomotive that was loaned to Amtrak in 1976 for the trials that led to the AEM-7 is _also_ still in service in Sweden. The Rc locomotives are gradually being withdrawn from passenger service in favor of quicker-accelerating EMU's, but there's still hundreds of them in service, especially in freight.
It is easier to keep very old rolling stock in service, because it is easier to source the electromechanical parts. I have some experience in train-spare parts procurement and replacing somewhat modern parts (late 90's - early 2000s) that use obsolete technical standards or proprietary technology of defunct comanies can be challanging and / or expensive. There are computers on fairly modern trains that still run windows 3.1. Trains use an early form of 2g to communicate. Therefore, the lifetime of trains will probably shorten, if a redesign that replaces / overhauls whole systmes is not done and depending on how standards change.
It would also be nice if we didn’t have stringent regulations, so that way we could we just order off-the-shelf trains from Europe or Japan and just have them assembled here. Instead of us having to make these difficult custom train sets.
Regarding the wing on a pantograph, in the uk we have several trains with them, seems like it's a standard pantograph that's used across classes. They're usually on the pivot point on the V part of the pantograph (I hope ppl understand what I mean there I have no idea on the correct technical terms)
I worked on these trains and I have to say: the NEC is abysmal to model. Variable line voltages, dramatic dips in current, rampant cantenary transients, I could go on. The lack of standardization is on another level compared to the rest of the world. Custom solutions engineered independently state by state throughout the system (think bridges running on Windows XP next to a switch from 1890 maintained by a surely pentioner). Alstom has their hands full trying to make something remotely modern that can adapt to these variables to say the least.
The problem with the Washington-Boston corridor is not rolliing stock, it's a road bed, parts of which predate the Civil War; still has grade-level street crossings, and has too many curves which can't be negotiated at high speeds. Fix those problems, then worry about rolling stock.
I took the Acela from 30th Street to Union station in DC a few months ago, and I was really impressed at how nice it was. The windows are large and there's a lot of space, even in coach! I took the TGV first class in France this summer and while it was good it wasn't quite as nice as Acela (although the SNCF TGV network is much better).
@@tonyburzio4107 Yeah, it's also usually really expensive to go even a short distance. It got me to DC pretty quickly, but going to NYC it's barely faster than regular Amtrak, and it just doesn't justify the price.
20 years is a really short service live for a high speed train. I can understand it somewhat on regional rail. Especially with the pace of inprovment in EMUs (in Europe). The ICE1 (which also visited the US back than) is on the rails since 1991. Deutsche Bahn intends to retire the senior by 2030. The sets hat refurbishments from 2005 to 2008. Since 2020 the have their second refurbishment. And honestly you don’t see the age (on the inside). But I won’t be sad when they are gone. I’m very curious what the ICE 5 will bring to the table
It’s sort of mind-boggling to me that the Acela is barely one year older than the ICE 3 and exactly as old as an ICE T. Basically, instead of bodging together a half-assed tilting TGV they could have just waited like two more years and buy an americanized version of the ICE T instead.
@@ft4709 Well.. the ICE T is one of the less reliable ones in the ICE family, so i believe there would have bin troubles either way. But at least it would have been an actually consistent design, that was not fused together in a weird way. But there is another major problem: crash safety regulations for trains in the US. As the video mentions the TGV locos had to be reinforced, to meet the standart. The issue with teh ICE T is that it is an EMU. And a lightweight one out of alluminium to make it worse. For people unfamiliar with the ICE T it has a super short "nose" and the passengers sit right behind the driver. To change the design so that it can pass theese tests must be a mayor challenge, if not impossible! Reinforce a locomotive at some points and make if heavier seems like an easy task in comparisson. Some private High Speed Projects, like Brightline West or the one in texas or also california hsr, use Siemens ICE 3 ( or rather Velaro, to be exact) style trains in their promo material and visulizations. I wonder if they want to really reinforce the train platform or they hope that they can get an exception from that rule. Siemens might try to cut a deal, when they are willing to bring the construction to the US. Some story that i find a bit amusing, as a german: There is some connection in california, called the sprinter, that uses a small EMU ( Siemens Desiro) , that is typically used as a regional and commuter train in Germany and elsewhere in Europe. But because that cute thing is way to fragile to withstand mayor crashes, it was actually classified as light rail service in order for it to be legal Simply Railways has a great video on it youtube.
The ICE-T uses Alstom tilting technology. Appart from that it shares a lot of technology with the ICE3. I think it would be smarter to go with a standard Pendolino, since this is a more mature and proven platform. If it can run through poland, greece and portugal, it must be able to handle the NEC.
yeah. The first TGV's lasted 40 years. The TGV's can last at least 30 though. After 15 years, the TGV's go into a midlife operation where the trains have their interiors renovated and repainted.
Partial disagreement that this is the first time Alstom has had a launch customer for a new platform be someone other than Amtrak: NTV (Italo) in Italy was the launch customer of the AGVs, for instance, the first distributed traction TGV model (a true EMU), and effectively the first generation of this design, preceding the Avelia Liberty. (As for the current Acelas, I think the power cars most remind me of the Thalys PKBA power cars, and I suspect they share a lot in common, more so than with the TGV Duplex.)
But for NTV they run on a true HSR infrastructure whit not a mix like NEC, and more over, here in italy and the rest of Europa hs train are politension elettric,
Regarding the domesticalicity: iirc there is the "build america act" or something that specifies how much of a railcar must be made Inside the US, a lot of subcontractors can participate from this and maybe band together to start their own rolling stock cobpany
I was a freight engineer/conductor on a regional, went to Amtrak as a conductor and only stayed for about a year. Easy job, great coworkers, schedule wasn't too bad. The biggest reason I left; I absolutely hated the newer Siemens equipment. The Chargers are unreliable, un-ergonomic/awkward to work on and around. They and the venture cars are over-engineered to their own detriment. The Venture cars kept going in and out of service as they would fix one issue just for another one to pop-up. It takes three separate keys to operate the cars and every car has its own computer system which doesn't allow the crews to adjust anything (hvac, speaker volume, etc). The Siemens techs couldn't even figure out how to adjust anything. It got to the point thatI would pray for a clapped out P42 and some equally worn horizons or amfleet cars to be in the consist because I knew I'd at least have a better chance of getting through the day without issues. When we trained in Philly they were testing the Alstom train sets and it seemed like every other day or two we'd hear about more problems with them. It baffles me that instead of cutting losses, Amtrak always seems to double down and purchase more of the same junk. While I miss interacting with passengers and wearing the suit, I am glad to be back to working on reliable freight equipment again.
Totally off topic but I'm still so sad that the split flap display board in Philadephia is gone. It was there when I visited in 2017 but it's gone now. The world's largest that's still operating is in Frankfurt Terminal 1 Departures.
The good news is that as far as US rail stations go, they’re still operating in New Jersey! Secaucus Junction (which has a BUNCH of them in different colors for the lines that stop there), Atlantic City Rail Terminal, and the Trenton Transit Center all have them!
@@AverytheCubanAmericanThe old "Solari & Co." board (which is the Italian company who made these things) at Newark Penn has unfortunately been replaced however. The replacement is LCD, which really does a good job of replicating the look. It even plays a recording of the flaps moving, to let you know the status has changed.
Remember, both the X2000 and the ICE were running under waiver from FRA. Production trains would have required strengthening to meet FRA buff strength at a minimum.
I as a German find it funny how you make Siemens the Alpha, cause just like France is the testground for Alstom, we are the testground for Siemens, and damn did we face issues with the ICE 3, which later became the Velaro, before we could start selling them to EVERYONE. Like, international market share of the Velaro is insane, if anyone had told us that in the 90s, nobody would have believed you. Same for other models, the chargers and the ACS are both slightly modified locomotives tnat were heavily tested here beforehand, and then they just build it in the US because of your weird "Buy american" rule
We think you’ve missed the true failing of the new Acela sets: the powercars and coaches don’t match up. The powercars are slabsided, and the coaches bow out. Clearly all of the problems you mentioned would be solved if someone just stapled a pice of fiber glass to each side of the powercars to smooth out the transition.
THIS has been pissing me off with every single picture of the Acelas I look at!!! The lower blue third of the sides doesn't line up in pictures and it makes me go mental! Also the livery is trash. Remember the concept video they put out like SEVEN YEARS AGO?! That was much better.
Your comments about the loss of rolling stock mfrs in this country are so true. Especially the Budd Company. The Amfleet cars that were built in the seventies are still in service and last year NYCTA retired subway cars made by Budd in the early sixties. The cars were going to be retired in 2000 but they lasted till 2022. That should tell how well they were built. You're absolutely right. We should be supporting companies that specialize in rolling stock Excellent video. .
One problem is that currently the US market for passenger train is very small. Amtrak has roughly as many trains as the Swiss Federal Railways (SBB/CFF/FFS), and Switzerland is a very small country (8 Million people), so Stadler has a similar home market than a US manufacturer would have, and they are very export oriented - you find KISS and FLIRT train-set in many countries. Also the US market is special (crash regulations, tracks designed for heavy and slow cargo trains, heavy reliance on diesel power, not using UIC standards) mean a US company would struggle to strive abroad…
The current Acelas were all made by Bombardier Transportation (which no longer exists). Bombardier had acquired the rights to build TGVs in North America. (since Alstom at the time had no presence here). So both locos and cars were made by Bombardier in Vermont (and I think portions at its Plattsburg NY plant). The coaches have NOTHING to do with the LRC cars. NOTHING. NIL NADA. The LRCs were build of aluminium frames and skin, built with low centre of gravity and light (hence the L) and had very mechanical tilting system that was quidckly turned off by VIA rail because it made people sick. It exceeded strenght/crash standards of the time, in the 1970s but then FRA decided to try to help Budd (steel only) by making it harder to have foreign trains in America. When Amtrak called for bids, very few were interested because of the need to downgrade their trains to meet FRA standards and this is very costly endeavour. The X2000 from Sweden was steel however it was now owned by AdTranz (ABB and Daimler Benz) which wanted out of the business and sold to Bombardier Transportation in 2001. So Bombardier bid and won. Bombardier designed the train from scratch since it had to be heavy and steel to meet FRA political standards and had to source components from USA due to "made in America", so nothing in common with LRC, nothing in common with TGV, except some of the designs for the power/traction motors. It has 0 commonality with the LRC. It is possible that the tilting mechanics (where levers are ocated relative to bogie/car chassis) may have been inspired form LRC, but that designed is fairly coimmon. The controls would have been electronic and new and certaintly not from the original LRC whose tilting nechanism had long been disabled. The first generation LRCs were purely all relay/mechanical systems because the railways had been overwhelved hy the fancy aircraft stuff in the United Aircraft TurboTrain and when CN spoke with MLW who designed the LRC, it wanted a simpler train that could be maintained by its maintenance crews used to maintaining steam trains. So instead of fancy electronics, it was relays. The rapid failure and unreliability of these systems lead Bombardier to update them for the second order to include some basic electronics. In later revisions done by VIA, more systems were changed to more modern electronics inludihjg adding hot wheel detectors etc. The LRC was join venture by MLW (Montreal Locomotive Works) Alcan (aluminium) and Dofasco (steel bogies). Before it started deliveries MLW was purchased by Bombardier so it was delivered as a Bombardier product though not designed by them. (as with almost all Bombardier transportation products in its lifetime). There is little interest for an order for 20 train sets that are custom made and would only ever be sold to Amtrak as a one-off and never sold anywhere else because nowhere else would be interested in a downgraded train to meet FRA standards. So it was easy for Bombardier to win the contract. Not so easy for it to deliver. Considering it was a one off, totally new design, the startup problems were not that bad (certaintly not as bad as the LRC when it was introduced).
Alstom also has more than one fleet of trains in the UK that should have been in service a couple years ago, but are still sat in sidings and doing occassional test runs, along with delayed introduction of a lot of other fleets of the same type (the aventra was designed by bombardier, but Alstom bought out their european railway business)
It's funny how you can point out that multiple customers are having issues with Alstom products, yet you'll continue to see French simps insisting that it's our fault, not theirs. Absolutely nothing will convince them otherwise, it seems.
I find it deeply disturbing that train enthusiasts remain willfully ignorant of the issues with high speed trains operated by Amtrak in the Northeast Corridor. The NE was the mainline of the Pennsylvania RR from NY to Philly and down to DC. It was a 4 track system and it operated everything from local freight, long haul freight, commuters and long haul passenger service. It was the only major US corridor converted to electricity and the most densely used one in the world. The road bed goes back to the 1850's and the catanary system is 1930's. The Pennsy managed to juggle all of that and let the Metroliner trains run an aggressive 120 mph in the late 50's and 60's. However, the Pennsy in the early 50's determined that they needed a new highspeed corridor and began to aquire options on land by 1954. The route they designed was from NYC to DC, but they also intended to extend the line to Chicago via Harrisburg, PA, Pittsburgh, Cleveland Detroit and finally Chicago. In fact the Pennsy was cutting edge on highspeed rail until the mid 1960's. The first bullet trains were test beds built by United Tech for the Pennsy and tested to 150 mph on short runs of upgraded track, but the financial problems of the 60's cut funds and the Pennsy abandon the work which was in final testing. The bullet train tech was sold to Japan and became the first generation of Bullet trains in service in Japan. Why di Pennsy drop it? The cost of the new rail corridor was exploding. When Amtrak was formed, Congress in typical political fashion cut deals and grabbed the NE corridor for Amtrak, BUT wrote into the law that they had to run commuter services as deemed needed by the locals, continue freight access and then cut budgets to the bone. They were warned they needed to build new freight lines to start with and commuter lines needed to be separated where possible, but the politicians rejected the costs. The new Hudson River tunnel is the only part of the long term Pennsy plan that is being executed. When proposed in the 00's, it had a $2.5 billion tag using the Pennsy design with upgrades. The politicians have since bloated it to over $20 billion with no change in =train capacity because the are dim light bulbs . The entire catenary system needs to be replaced along with the electrical systems supporting it. However that means changing things on thousands of trains to meet a new electrical standard. Mega $$$ and Congress won't pay. Freight continues to use the rails because it is the only access to the ports. And Politicos are demanding MORE commuter trains on the right of way making it impossible to run dedicated high speed lines. Why does Amtrak only buy 40 Acela sets? Because the are still using Metroliners older than most employees on the same tracks. Why? Because Congress won't do anything to move commuter trains to dedicated lines clearing rail for Amtrak who can not even control their own rail. Congress would also have to give them $15 BILLION to replace all the older trains to run just high speed on the rails the could block out. The harsh truth is the NE corridor can never be high speed until the commuters are moved to new track and the freight services are given their own branches to service the ports and industry.
Maybe Amtrak should look at what Brightline has done here in Florida. Granted it is not a 200mph trainset, but will be able to maintain 125 on most of the track that has been constructed. Brightline has taken a whole different approach to building and operating a railroad and hopefully it will spread to other parts of the country.
Yes, that's right when wondering how to get its new high-speed trains capable of 160 mph that will run on a wholly electrified at most four tracked fully grade separated between Washington and New Haven up and running Amtrak should look to a company running the exact same diesel trains that Amtrak runs in the Midwest, on non-grade separated, non-electrified track where every fortnight some Floridian dies after having driven around the boom gates. Brightline trains have a max speed of 79 mph while Amfleets (Amtraks Budd workhorses from the 70's) go 110 mph from Washington to New York. Come on let's be serious here. Like in what way has Brightline taken a "whole different approach to operating a railroad" other than introducing airport style security?
@@geraiswaiya2347 Brightline uses the same locomotives that Amtrak does and they have a top speed of 125mph. Also, it doesn't matter how fast they can theoretically go, it matters how fast they are allowed to go which in this case is 79mph.
@@livgalbraith5538brightline west will be on a dedicated track and will be "high speed"by definition, unlike Florida. It's electric, which California likes on their end for meeting emissions goals. Nevada side likes it for tourism and traffic. I'm certain CA will screw up their connecting lines, but at least it's something
Great Video however there are just a few point that you were slightly mistaken on but your concept was spot on . 1) the original Acela sets were produced by Bombardier of Canada the power car tech, prime mover and various items were from Alstom, which they sent to Bombardier for the Acela. 2) the Original Acela;s could have been lighter however Bombardier and Amtrak had to use 1990's FRA regulations , even though A waiver was asked for as new rules were set to be released a few year later in the 2000s it was denied and the Acela's stayed overweight due to antiquated FRA specs, for the trains to be released for revenue service on time. 3) Bombardier is now defunct and was sold to Alstom back in 2021. 4) In 2016 when Amtrak went with Alstom for the new Acela's they really had no other choice ! During the life of the original Acela's, Amtrak was back and forth with Bombardier with Multiple bitter lawsuits. Amtrak blamed bombardier of faulty products and Bombardier hit back because of how many changes Amtrak kept making while in production of the train, which Bombardier made grudging at Amtrak's request thing that were never part of the original deal. This made every other Rail Manufacture out there pretty much say Heck NO ! when Amtrak came asking for builder's of Acela GEN 2. 5) The new Acela's are not brand new, there actually Modified Alstom Italy "ITALIO" AGV trains that have been around for a few years, Alstom saw the writing on the wall from the Bombardier fiasco and let Amtrak know up front they will NOT design a new train just for them but will Modify the AGV to meet FRA crash worthiness and US standards, however as there finding out other specs for American track, switches, and station specs are not what was expected.. 6) Notice even Cali is not getting there own "new" trains, there new caltrain and HSR sets will be off the shelf European equipment that's modified for American use.
It seemed a bit strange to me that people are upset with Alstom, generally when you give them good instructions and money they make you good trains, especially for metro and regional trains, something similar happens with Siemens If you want a cheap train you would have to go with CAF or CRRC to have something "decent", and even then there are no guarantees I say it's all domestic fault, the entire North American train system looks like something out of the 40's
Hi Alan, Speaking as a Brit that represented the Professional Head of Railway Operations, for rolling stock acceptance, signalling systems and EU Directives, I found you make some excellent points, but missed a lot ! I have spent time with AMTRAK, Alaska Railroad, White Pass & Yukon, VIA Rail Canada, Tshiuetin, Ontario Northland, Rocky Mountaineer, GO Transit, AMT Montreal, WCE Vancouver etc. I have done TGV Duplex, Atlantique, Reseau, etc. and ICE3, SJ's X2000 tilting trains and been on the footplate across a few continents. The "wings" or aerofoils on pantographs are quite normal, in Britain they date from the Bracknell Willis High Speed Pan on Class 87s, a loco first introduced with an older pan design in 1976. The characteristics of British / European track and US / Canadian track is most pronounced, with yourselves having a 40 ton axle load increasing to 60 tons; whilst the UK has the heaviest in Europe at 25 tons. France is 22.5 tons and Norway is 15 tons. North American track is largely owned by the freight companies and freight is king. Here in the UK and Europe, passenger trains take precedence, well at least until the Track Access Agreements saw Signalmen (Dispatchers in US speak) no longer regulate trains to let the passenger go first. The heavier North American axle weight is for your double stack containers, and also because of your higher rolling stock standard for crashworthiness. Here in the UK and Europe the emphasis is on crash prevention, rather than crash mitigation. Our trains have lower crash worthiness, as all UK lines have Train Prevention & Warning System which has cut SPADs (signals passed at danger) by 75%, and the remaining 25% are stopped within the signal overlap (i.e. the bit of track beyond the red signal in which no other train or conflicting movement should be). In France, their Automatic Train Prevention, which is a SIL4 system (fails once every 35,000 years) is TVM440 and since introduction in 1980, has eliminated all collisions. A lighter weight train, can go faster and not cause so much track damage and hence not so much need for speed restrictions brought about by track defects. AMTRAK brag that Acela is the faster train in the western hemisphere, which it blatantly is not. West of the Greenwich Meridian sits large parts of Britain, France Spain etc. all of which have some routes that do 185 mph to 200 mph (in France, e.g. Lyon to Marseille). Acela only does 150 mph, and that is not Washington to Boston, but through ONE STATION ONLY. The rest of the time Acela does 125 mph, or 110 mph, or less. Train speed is wholly dependent on the speed of the train in front. No point doing 150 mph, if the train in front is only doing 75 mph. So AMTRAK need to eliminate bottlenecks, slow speed turnouts, and ideally build a dedicated high speed line, so all Acelas can run 150 mph or higher Washington to Boston for the entire journey, except for a few stops, like New York, and minor halts like that ! LOL ! You are right to point out the benefits of home-grown rolling stock manufacturers, because there is no substitute for local knowledge on the railway. I thought General Electric was also on the US side of Lake Erie ? I am horrified that AMTRAK and VIA Rail Canada have opted for the Siemens loco to replace the beloved P42DCs and F40PH-2s etc. Siemens had some disasters in Britain and Europe. Their Desiro EMUs (Class 444s and 450s) caused new rails to need replacing on the routes they operate, and the Desiro DMU (Class 185) is so heavy, it has time penalties. Whilst in Norway the Siemens Di 6 was so dreadful, 11 out of 12 locos bought were out of service, and the 12th loco, famously derailed and the cab separated from the loco body, with the driver (Engineer in US speak) still in the cab as it plummeted down a mountainside. Personally, when I use AMTRAK I try to ensure I have a comfy Amfleet 1 built by Budd. I opt for coach class rather than business, as if the aircon fails in the business/cafe car, it gets hot as well as interruptions from passing diners. The ACS-64 is okay. But the P42DC (and P32-AC-DM) rule okay. France has built 8 high speed lines, and 12 more are under construction to be completed soon. The next generation of high speed is aimed to be 250 mph, and the TGV Duplex has already achieved 357 mph on test - see TH-cam. Within the next 50 years, who knows 500 mph might be achievable. That will give your domestic airlines a run for their money ! Nice to hear an American who is pro-rail. Keep up the good work. Regards, Vic from London, England.
Feel like you're being a bit ungenerous here. Western hemisphere in a political sense is popularly understood to refer to anything on the Western side of the Atlantic, like the US wasn't applying the Monroe doctrine to Ireland. Also, the freight thing isn't really relevant at all since the Acela runs exclusively on tracks owned by Amtrak from DC to New York and then a combo of Metro-North and State DOTS north of New York. I think Amtrak does the dispatching for whole corridor, possibly excepting the Metro North section but would need someone more knowledgeable than me to confirm that. Freight is absolutely not king on the NEC, passenger rail is. The Acela does 150 on a few sections of track, most notably in central jersey and in Mass. Also as a point of comparison 150 is faster than anything on the East Coast Mainline in Britain which maxes out at 125. There is nothing wrong 125 mph though and the real slog is Connecticut which is like that because the track snakes along the coast and the towns don't feel like supporting straightening it out. As a result rail is highly competitive between Washington and New York but not necessarily between Washington and Boston. You're right about the Amfleets though, the most comfortable trains around (excepting an AC breakdown).
@@livgalbraith5538 I am not talking local colloquialisms. Firstly because that is NOT the definition of what constitutes the Western Hemisphere. Secondly, because if you use local colloquialisms, what is a common phase or use where you live, could have a totally different meaning somewhere else. In fact, you eloquently make my own argument for me ! Thank you. West of the Greenwich Meridian includes parts of UK's HS1 (which is 186 mph) and parts of France and Spain whose TGVs and AVEs also do 186 mph, west of Greenwich.
@@vicsams4431 alright no need to get upset. It's not a colloquialism, both encylopedia brittanica and several dictionaries give the definition of Western Hemisphere as a metonym for the Americas and as used by geographers anything west of the prime meridian. In fact Western Hemisphere is defined by US law as anything West of the Atlantic and is used by the State Department, Congress and other institutions in this sense. Amtrak is fully within it's rights to claim it has the fastest train in the Western Hemisphere, it is an American company catering to Americans who will all understand that fastest train in the Western Hemisphere does not include France or Spain or that brief bit of HS1 that I guess is technically west of Greenwich. Dunno what else to tell you except that there are better things in life to rage about than the fact that Western Hemisphere has both a geographic and a political meaning.
@@livgalbraith6531 Typical Yank. Thinks the world ends at Maine. Thinks US law applies everywhere. Unable to admit you are wrong. None of which alters the facts.
It's probably because these new trainsets have Jacobs bogies and they behave differently than the old, sloppy 2-separate-bogies-per-car method we've used for 150 years, and all the old fuddy-duddy scientists from the engineering firms can't handle learning something new...
It has to be said: Well um awctually the metroliner was the fastest trian in the world at the time and was technically considered high speed rail, also the high speed ground transporation act was the true start of highspeed rail in the US and gave PRR, Penn Cnetral and later Amtrak the money to start investing into its services btween DC and NYC. Alan doesn't realize the fatal mistake he has made and I will make a long and detailed comment that no one will read but I get to feel smug.
...the original Acela wasn't the first dealings Amtrak had with a French company. Back in the 1970s they operated turbine powered train sets on the Chicago - Detroit, Chicago - Milwaukee, and Chicago - St Louis corridors. THe trains used, referred to as ATGs, were built by ANF of France and operated from 1973 to 1981. Three of the six train retired sets were rebuilt and put into service on the Empire corridor where they served from 1988 to 1994. being taken out of service after one caught fire in Peen Station New York (ironically on September 11th of that year).
So i actually know some other details about this from a different perspective. I worked the first 10 years of my career so far in Metal based product manufacturing ( out of Rochester NY). I worked for two different competing companies that both had Alstom as a customer. What I can say is that Alstom does use some American manufacturing for what it does, but they bid out different parts and part packages to small contract manufacturers like those I worked for. The reason that they do this is because they are a foreign company, so they save shipping costs from overseas producers. But as I'm sure Alan here understands, using contractors usually costs more because you have a lot more shipping from contractor to contractor and market up after mark up. This brings up the other reason Alstom uses American contractors, and that's because small American contractors are non-union shops with less regulation. being a European company, Alstom holds its own internal practices to a more European standard, They are union and hold high regulatory standards. This was a major point of contention with one of the companies i worked for and ultimately was why my employer chose to end their business with Alstom, and i know this to be true because my employer- was my Father.
Alstom's rolling stock business in the US is much larger than Siemens', even more since the merger with Bombardier. It makes completely sense for Amtrak to continue working with them, moreover Siemens does not master tilting train technology as much as Alstom who bought the Pendolino manufacturer a few years ago.
We should have bought Velaro trainsets like any reasonable person would have
They are great trains, even after 20 years.
The frecciarossa 1000 is also a great train and is newer. Talgo is also launching a new train platform soon with the new AVRIL.
I don’t mean Alstom makes terrible trains but little bit of rolling stock diversity would be better. Even Turkey (with I’m pretty sure very less expertise and budget on railroads) have acquired both Europe’s most cost-effective (CAF Cepia) and most technological (Siemens Velaro) high speed trains initially for YHT services.
Greetings from germany
The Netherlands also should've done that..
I mean, look at the Fyra debacle, all because they had to cheap out on their trains (like Amtrak)
@@jorgea5426 There is the new Velaro NEO and NOVO which are updated trains
I like how America and Canada were built on trains, yet even setting up the most basic rail infrastructure now is such a challenge, politicians doing anything on rail is considered newsworthy.
Blame the people. Everyone claims they want one but as soon as one is proposed the people hire every shady lawyer that crawls out of the woodwork to sue over every imaginable issue, real or not. Without loser pays we can no longer have nice things.
@@RS-ls7mm The car infrastructure in our cities have to be bulldozed the same way our cities were bulldozed to eliminate trams and railways. So long as this continent is addicted to cars, both individually and politically, reform is impossible.
@@spaghettiking7312 No offense but this kind of thinking dies when its your house than needs bulldozing. The EU invented rail and has more abandoned rail lines then the US will ever have new rail lines. Its easier and more valid for the EU in every way.
@@RS-ls7mm Err... if you look at your history... Practical rail was a British invention (Britain wasn't in the EU at the time, obviously, and isn't today either)...
More importantly, INDIA had a functional main line railway before continental Europe did (built by the British for their own reasons, mind you).
More importantly still... the claim that the EU invented rail runs into the problem of Rail predating the EU. Substantially.
Now, "railways were invented in Europe" is valid... for a ever so very slightly stretched definition of Europe (and assuming we're talking about practical railways. I make no claim regarding where minecart tracks or wagon-ways, both of which used rails, but weren't really Railways, which are generally defined by the existence of the power being provided by something other than gravity or the muscles of living beings.)
@@laurencefraser Obviously I was generalizing. If you want a detailed history then TH-cam is not the place.
When the Mk1 ICE toured the US they had two main issues:
-Passengers hated sitting face-to-face
-It couldn't cope with the poor US track quality
I'm sure Siemens would've built them with upside-down seating if Amtrak ordered it.
@@jfolz That would only be useful in Australia.
@@nitehawk86 tinnie holders for the Aussies.
People seriously hated the 2+2 table seats? Those are the best when traveling with either more than 2 people or in relatively empty trains! Perfect to get some work done while your companion sits across, for having a chat, or a meal. Only travelling alone or in overbooked trains are regular seats nicer IMO
@@Lolwutfordawin I remember reading about the trials, and one passenger they "interviewed" said "sitting face to face with a stranger for 2 hours might be fine in Germany, in the US it might get you shot."
On a sillier note: Siemens also forgot to provide an english language manual for the Bord Restaurant's coffee machine. So that didn't help the mood.
Want a reliable high speed train like France ?
- Dedicated lines for passengers only
- Straight curves
- Good maintenance
Not shitty pendular trains on shitty old tracks to save money.
Pretty simple. But maintenance is the key. France prioritised funds to high speeds lines, the flagship. So certains secondary lines are in bad shape, with lot of delays , reduced speeds, canceled trains, lack of drivers..... That's another story.
Japan Railway started using pendulation for their shinkansen with the 500 series and the N700 series. It's amazing how they combine high quality trains and high quality tracks to create a fast and confortable experience. France's tilted track are unconfortable when the train is not at correct speed at each section.
Well fortunately Brightline West is going to be a building a straight-ish high speed right of way (hopefully). If they use the Avelia trains there (which I think they will for timeline reasons), hopefully there will be a lot less shenanigans getting them to work there.
Ummm, no. Brightline West is literally doing the opposite of straight track. They’re building in a highway median with mostly 65 mph speed limits for rubber tire vehicles. Consequently, there are no HSR sections at all on the California side (2/3rds of the trackage).
In fact, Brightline’s right of way is so twisty that their permitting documents only indicate two short 150+ mph on the flat desert approach into LV. The entire thing is also single-tracked with a few passing sections to reach the rather meager 45-minute maximum theoretical train frequency.
This is exactly why no one ever builds HSR in an existing highway median. If this is ever done they either built the highway with HSR curvature and elevation requirements from the outset, or they build both concurrently. Brightline’s plan is a bit of a dumpster fire and not technically HSR. It’s just fast-ish “highER speed rail”.
Not going to happen given the US legal system. Every time one is proposed it collapses under the weight of frivolous lawsuits. Imaginary "sacred" grounds, not in my back yard, special interest, union corruption, ..... Without loser pays this country isn't going to change.
And overambitiousness. A very Europe-specific problem is also international certification. When Czech Railways were buying their own Pendolinos (class 680 derived from the FS ETR 460) the railroad was like "it's so cool man high speed rail and it can go like 230km/h and we'll have a whole new category of trains, and you can go from Brno to Berlin without switching trains". The 680s got certified for travel in Slovakia and Austria, but not Germany. And on the international routes there's only Pendolinos going to Slovakia because trains to Vienna are handled by rented Railjets. The other service is a border-to-border express train (Františkovy Lázně - Pilsen - Prague - Ostrava) but Pendolinos are not common, most trains on the route are just regular express trains pulled by Vectrons or 362s. All main railroad corridors in the country are limited to 160km/h at best, no track goes above that. The main corridors are good, Praha-Pardubice is pretty much a straight line, the rest are worse as they're pretty much drawn along a river, the main problem is with outdated railroad classification dating back to the early 90s. And nowadays, the tracks are being Also, there were 160km/h locomotives by the time, so the speed advantage was dubious. Passenger-comfort wise not, because the existing locomotives were technologically outdated before they were made, the replacement locomotive was still nowhere because the heavy industry giant developing it got privatized and nearly collapsed, and the carriages were not even air conditioned. Pendolinos aren't being replaced even though the sets will turn 20 in some years, the railroad still counts on them, instead it seems to focus on updating and replacing other rolling stock, I can't blame them because a lot of it is nearly half a decade old.
TLDR: Czech state railroad ordered 7 sets of high speed tilting trains that even after 20 years can't run any faster than regular trains because of outdated tracks and track legislation and the government and its appointed railroad officials overpromised before they could deliver
putting "wings" on pantographs to stabilize them isn't as goofy as you might think, it's pretty standard procedure actually. pretty much all the types i worked on had them in one form or another
It might be standard but I still find it goofy
Plenty of UK stock has wings on the pantographs of intercity stock. . Standard brecknell Willis pantograph
Misuse of a comma.
I was about to say "whats wrong with panto wings?", they are on near enough every pantograph here in the UK
@@AwesomeHaironoone cares.
You're right about the domestic manufacturing part. Imagine what if the train lobby was as successful as General Motors...
Problem is if they tried to take as much money from people as car lobby it'd be more noticable since it'd be mostly on ticket and transport prices, while car lobby succesfully offloaded the entire infrastructure cost of roads to taxpayers while keeping the profits.
Kinda hard to maintain a domestic train industry when the federal government is doing everything in their power to destroy the domestic steel and oil industries.
Whatever happened to GE and EMD? They still make solid locomotives...
The year is 2123. The train lobby is as influential as General Motors with in the twentieth century. All of the streets have been ripped up and replaced with rails. People need to walk five miles to their nearest level crossing, then wait 1 hour for a twenty mile long precision scheduled megatrain to pass before they can cross. All of this just to get to the CVS across the street.
No one should ever be as successful as GM again. They totally claim 80%+ of public space for their product.
Well, then we'd have to deal with badge engineered trains. The Buick LaCountry with 4400 HP built on the same platform as the Chevrolet Pelvic Traction making 1500 HP and featuring a Fisher-Price playset interior.
Everyone's focused the trains, but the real crime was how Alan writes his checkmarks.
lol
i thought i was the only one who noticed
He writes them bass ackwards.
ikr ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
Fun fact: the Liberty is the first Avelia out precisely because SNCF/French Gov delayed their order of TGV M (Avelia Duplex). SNCF has been "downsizing" the TGV fleet for the past decade or so (for reasons I won't get into), which has negatively impacted Alstom and its suppliers. Your whole argument wrt supporting the rolling stock industry is on point.
Well, SNCF ordered 115 TGV M (Avelia [Horizon]) trainsets. That is certainly not a decline in numbers. Especially, since TGV M can hold up to 740 passengers on a 200m trainset.
@@deepsteep4748
Yeah. Americans don't seem to understand how trains work outside of the kilometers long trains
@@deepsteep4748 hence the quotes around "downsizing". The fleet size relative to the size of the HS network is on a downwards trends. SNCF recently scrapped the last Sud-Est units (109 built), Atlantique units are out too (27 remaining out of 105), 1st gen Eurostars are mostly gone (8 remaining out of 36). The peak was probably in the mid 2000s and there hasn't been a one-for-one replacement since then. The number of **seats** is fairly consistent but on much fewer trains. It **is** an issue because some destinations have fewer trains per day, but SNCF can still claim to offer the same service. There's a massive loss of convenience on some routes. But it's a topic far too complex for a TH-cam comment 😅
@@remicardona_poly Ok, you are right on that one. At least, this 115 train badge is similar to the numbers of the first Generations, with much more seats per train, tho. But considering the growth of the LGV-network since the 1980s, it should be more trainsets and i certainly hope, that there is an upwards trend in fleet size for the future. Thanks for the clarification!
@@remicardona_poly for several reasons you are wrong, first of all the retirement of the TGV Sud Est (355 pax per train) and Atlantique (454 pax per train) have been replaced by the TGV Euroduplex 3UFC (556 pax per train) proves that the available seats are increasing, moreover the first generation of TGV Duplex is being renovated to gain 50 pax per train. Secondly, Eurostar trains do not belong to sncf but to Eurostar directly and have been replaced by Siemens velaro trains, which also have greater capacity.
Maybe you could show on a map exactly where the most decrepit NE Corridor rail sections are located. So that everyone would know where rail infrastructure upgrades are most urgently needed. It would be great if the entire NE Corridor could be height upgraded to allow for double-decker train cars to run along that route. Maybe even allow for running a double-decker Auto Train between the Boston area & Florida, for example. Similar track improvements to what Brightline Florida has recently finished upgrading.
Connecticut, Delete the whole thing and straighten the route.
The biggest thing stopping amtrak from running superliner cars through NYC is the tunnels, they are too small. That's why amtrak uses the viewliner cars on its long distance trains that go through NYC.
There's a few Very Expensive bits that have to get redone like bridges and tunnels, and you can't incrementally roll out bilevel cars if you can't run them at least from NYC to DC.
@@Joesolo13 ironic given it's called Connect-i-Cut.
@@jfolz emphasis on "I cut"
Note: Avelia is a generic Alstom brand for all its high speed trains. The Liberty is one version of Avelia. Horizon is the version which SNCF will brand as TGV-M. There is the Avelia Pendolino etc. From what I read, the Liberty has its locos come from the Averia Horizon development but the coaches come from the AGV cars, without traction motors. The Horizon locos are designed to haul double deck TGVs while AGVs are single desk and this explains why the locos are weird shape compared to the coaches. (AGVs have only sold to 1 customer in Itarly).
The other important aspect: Amtrak specified tilting which TGVs don't have except for Avelia Pendolinos. (and not all Pendolinos have it, only the slower models because tilting has to be disabled for high speed trains)
The aluminium car shells were allowed to come from Europe (since no expertise in USA anymore), but the rest has to be made in USA, so Alstom had to source components here so in the end, it ends up being a totally new train that needs totally new testing.
part of the thinking on the tilting is to help reduce lateral force on tracks in a curce. The heavier the train, the mode sideways force on rails in a curve that can push track sideways. By tilting, it at least reduce the weight of the car that is pushed to the side in curce (but not the bogie which remains steady on tracks). proper track inclination in curves eliminates the need for any tilting and greatly reduces cost of train sets (and increase reliability and comfort. It is a HUGE challenge to tilt a train without maing people sick due to any delay between starting curve and starting of tilting. (and vice versa at end of curve).
SO maybe buy america is the problem!
@@jacktattersall9457 In is a problem in so far as a train developped with X compoents in mid now has to be redevelopped with totally new components that the designers did not think of or test or choose.
In montréal, when CDPQ impose its REM on the city without consultations, it knew Bombarder was to go bankrupt (since itw aas the one who imposed unsurvivable coditions when it helped recapitalise it) so it ordered trains not only from Alstom, but from an Indian production line that was already producing models for another city and CDPQ chose the exact same trains with very few modifications in order to reduce risk. Because it was technically not a govrnment contract, (even though it is government pension plan)_ it escaped any Made in Canada provisions but was quite cirticised for it. So there is an advantage of taking an off the sehglf product and not insisting they chjange everything to contain enough local content.
Hello Alan, I live in Watertown, MA, a suburb of Boston. I wanted to tell you about the abhorrent transit situation that the nearby city of Lynn has found itself in. The city has been building more densely around its commuter rail station, however, the MBTA has closed the station due to the disrepair of the building, even though it was built in 1991. A new station will not be done until 2030, which is absolutely ridiculous.
The city has urged the MBTA to build a temporary platform, which will take 12-18 months. Otherwise, they have to take a shuttle bus to Swampscot for the commuter rail or a shuttle to Revere for the Blue Line, which will take a long amount of time during rush hour. It's ridiculous that Lynn, which is the same distance to Boston and Brooklyn is to Manhattan, has no accessible transit to get to Boston. This is compounded by the fact of the large Latino and Black population in Lynn. This has also caused economic problems as building contractors to have densified around the station will suffer since young commuters will not move in without transit. This has led to a grocery store cancelling its plan to move into one of the buildings. I wanted to spread the news about this. If you want to see the full article, it's in the June 25th Boston Globe written by Joan Vennochi.
WOW. I’m in Medford and hate the T but hasn’t heard this.. 20 years to rebuild a station that was only 30 years old? Only in Massachusetts… disgraceful
Heyy Alan, nice video man! The Avelia platform actually is a platform of trains that exceed 200 km/h (125mph) and comprises of the: Avelia Liberty, Avelia Horizon, Avelia AGV, Avelia Pendolino and Avelia Speedelia. The problem for Amtrak was that they wanted to combine the Avelia TGV series with the AGV and Pendolino. Also Amtrak wanted an Pendolino derived train at first but wasn't allowed back then by the FRA and needed powercars.
That’s the problem. Amtrak bought HSR trains without having any HSR infrastructure. That’s like trying to run Shinkansen trains on the normal network. It just won’t work, or work very well. Some people might point out that this “doesn’t work” because the Shinkansen runs on an entirely separate network from the regular trains, and the Amtrak uses regular main lines. Well so does ICE and the TGV, expect both DB and SNCF networks are up to par so that wherever the HSR trains need to run on normal mainlines, those mainlines can properly handle the HSR trains. That’s what’s missing for Amtrak.
The better choice for NEC tracks is Pendolino, that is designed to run up to 155 Mph commercial speed and maximise the speed on winding alignments. You need to change your FRA regulation to a less European like stringent ones...
@@DanTheCaptain Please start shouting at the House Chair of transportation about that.
This is objectively untrue. The NEV is 50+% 125 mph track. The actual problem is that a good chunk of it is old and needs repairs which are already budgeted for in the Infrastructure Bill.
But this is not the problem that Alstom is having. Siemens dies just fine on the NEC. The problem is Alstom’s own disorganized nature. They’re just not a serious company anymore with all the cuts that they gave been doing.
Their French contracts have dwindled in recent years and they simply don’t have the money to operate as they used to . But instead of downsizing, they’re doing sneaky internal cuts and trying to keep an outward facade if “business as usual”. You can see how well that denial is working out for them.
@@DanTheCaptain A high-speed train without having HS infrastructure - that is actually the principal idea behind the Pendolino, that it is a train which can go faster on legacy infrastructure. It's not as fast as a "real" HS train on a completely new, properly built HS corridor, but it's a good compromise between speed, investment cost, and "time to market".
Also love that you are wearing a Conrail shirt whilst explaining how this mess was made. Conrail fixing the NE rail nightmare leads to irony with us talking about fixing Amtrak.
9:48 It’s wild, because the United States actually does this with the automotive industry ALL the time.
The majority of the defense budget is also corporate welfare for the weapons manufacturers.
Military boondoggles come and go without anyone batting an eye at billions of dollars going up in smoke. But if a train project goes over budget everyone loses their minds. You get wall to wall negative media coverage, conservative politicians bash the project to get votes and it sets back the US rail industry by 30 years.
But automotives are American, while trains are communist.
Only really by purchasing from those companies. Yes, the government did "bail out" GM, but it made money from that. Fiat bailed out Chrysler. Ford did not need bailout money.
funny comment, considering the US Government actually BAILED OUT GM and Chrysler in 2008
Ultimately, that’s because trains only effect parts of the country, whereas cars and the car industry affects almost everyone.
Throwing money at domestic train manufacturers is exactly the mistake we made in Canada. Bombardier was the world's largest rolling stock manufacturer, and the Canadian government favoured them for Canadian rail orders. In the absence of any real competition, Bombardier increasingly produced subpar products. And although Canadian railways still purchased their stuff, that's not enough to support a large worldwide manufacturer, and they started falling behind on the world stage. Now we no longer have any Canadian rail manufacturers since Bombardier bought all the other ones, and now they've been bought by Alstom.
This! Bombardier, god bless them, made some truly terrible rolling stock as a result. Competition is still necessary if you want good results.
Don't forget the only reason Bombardier's rail business got as big as it did was because they bought both Hawker-Siddeley's rail division, the Montreal Car Company, and UTDC. So in typical Canadian fashion multiple companies became just one both thus reducing competition and making everything worse in general. It's impressive our bus industry still exists although Orion is gone.
@@METRO6 I didn't forget, I mentioned that in my last sentence
The federal government sadly subsidized the company into oblivion.
That’s pretty much what happened to the UK too. Our domestic manufacturers one by one closed down, and now they’re Alstom, Siemens and Hitachi factories instead. All the new train classes in the UK are based on imported platforms, which the politicians say will get them built quicker. And they are. But then they have 2-5 years of bugs and testing and retrofits to get them in proper working order after that, which is more time in total than would’ve been spent on a BREL or Metro-Cammell train end to end.
At least in Europe, every country had its own companies. Austria had SGP and Elin, East German AEG factory was ranemed LEW Hennigsdorf after WW2, Italy had (until very recently) Breda and Fiat, ASEA was Swedish, Czechoslovakia had Škoda (still exists but they don't make locomotives anymore), Poland's Pafawag still exists I think. A lot of them went under either Siemens or, ultimately, Alstom. LEW Hennigsdorf is probably what underwent the most acquisitions, first it was bought back by AEG, which then merged into ADTranz, which got bought by Bombardier, which got bought by Alstom. ASEA too, merged with Swiss Brown Boveri into ABB, then ADTranz, and so on.
@@segarallychampionship702 Notice how the rigging and bending of EU procurement rules conveniently ignored in France and Germany lead to two very large rail manufacturers coincidentally one German and one French. I think CAF, Stadler and Talgo won't survive long in their present form.
And we have John Major to thank for that diabolical state of affairs with his ill-fated rail privatisation, then coupled with the UK government slavishly following EU Procurement rules conveniently ignored elsewhere in Europe (looking at France and Germany).
@@aalan4296 Alstrom owns stuff in Germany (and other places) and with Siemens it's reverse. Stadler will survive if only because it's propped up by the Swiss themselves -- and it's not like they aren't successfully exporting, either. It would really be a mistake to under-estimate what they can bring to the table given the utter paradise that is the Swiss train system and they built pretty much all of it in often very flexible and ingenious ways. They're not afraid of single track, for example, or putting two pantographs on a train and have them run on AC on one section, and DC another.
@@aoeuable The Swiss require narrower pantographs than what is common elsewhere in Europe (presumably due to tunnel clearance), so some ÖBB 1116 locomotives have three pantographs
In about every 50 comments someone asks about the mismatched side profiles. Short answer is they have always been like that since the beginning when decision was made to pair power cars with trailing cars from 2 different series. The power cars do not tilt so no reason for tapered sides. The trailing cars do tilt so if it makes people happier consider that the sides align at full tilt. It's basic form follows function.
An early CGI rendering by Alstom did show a transitional fairing piece at the back of the power car to blend the profiles. Hopefully one of these days Alstom or Amtrak will explain why it was not included in the final production design. I suspect the reason for omitting that fairing piece was that power car and trailing cars are already roughly the same width or at least close enough that any deviation has no effect on wind resistance. At their belt line the trailing car may be slightly wider than the power car however above the belt line the profiles of the trailing cars taper inward and become narrower than the power car. An additional fairing on its own could not resolve the profile difference unless the shell of the power car also tapered inward to match. Altering the shape of the power car shell could have altered its structural design and create a chain reaction of parts and pieces that no longer fit within the reduced shell envelope.
All that would fly in the face of Amtrak's goal of using "off the shelf" components as much as possible to avoid repeating the mistakes of the original Acela. Perhaps the additional fairing would have added unnecessary weight and there were benefits to performance in omitting it. I hate to quote Elon Musk but there is an old adage he likes to repeat (certainly copied from someone else) going something like "The best part is no part. Sometimes the best design is no design. Sometimes the best solution is no solution." BTW - that did not go so well for Elon in omitting the flame diverter below Starship but in concept it holds true.
At first the mismatch bothered me but then I began to respect its aesthetic honesty. I love Amtrak's "British Rail style" 2-tone color scheme for the new Acelas but it would help to draw attention away from the mismatched side profiles if the power cars adopted a more solid color and they did not even bother trying to extend the lower blue stripe across. Extending that stripe across just highlights the discrepancy. Instead I've always thought things would look better if the slab sides of the power cars were the same blue as the roof and current large blue Acela name and logo changed to white on a blue background. Now everything would be fixed, The mind just sees a mostly blue power car trailed by blue and grey trailing cars.
Even as they stand now I think the new Acelas make for an incredibly attractive set. Much more attractive than the Siemens Velaros in my opinion. The Alstom power cars have a distinct and modern design unlike the Siemens Velaros that just look too generic and bulbous to me. The only thing that really bothers me now on the new Acelas is noticing that the car numbers on the power cars and trailing cars do not match in size. They have to at least make those match!
Best comment on here, yet no likes in the first day as hundreds of other comments appear. WTF railfans?
@@trainluvr thank you!!! Glad to know at least one person has read it!
Obviously blame the French, Acela must come sooner!
S
Me convincing random people online to hate the French: "They're savages! Savages! Barely even human!"
As an austrian i approve of this message
(insert germany vs france joke here)
@neptune well luckily America didn't buy trains from AnsaldoBreda those trains where and some are not trustable and NS is testing their ICNG trainsets
WOW! Support for domestic companies that isn't based on "Us before them" or "Keep our money here!"
DC to Richmond should be electrified, along with the Empire Corridor and the Hartford Line
Not just that but the NPN and Norfolk corridors due to them being extremely straight. The Acelas won't run on them but at least 110-125 mph service with sprinters
New Haven Railroad had plans to electrify the Hartford line installing catenary bridges all the way to MP 3.5, Benton St. the plan was scrapped during the depression. If you watch a cab ride video they are still there, but wire was never strung.
@@Charger_84 that's easy enough to say, but the rails in VA are owned by freight railroads. they definitely do not want wires above their rails.
@@jackchen7003 intermodal trains are not an excuse
@@jackchen7003 most main lines in Virginia were purchsed by the state. And you can put wires above rails, in fact freight companies can benefit from it. And yes, double stack trains could be electric too.
As a former railroad maintenance worker in the Northeast Corridor, I will say this: high-speed will NEVER work as long as passenger trains have to share trackage with freight & commuter trains. The Northeast Corridor also has way too many curves to built up speeds, and we could never understand why they chose to purchase a trainset we had never tested in the U.S.; we had already had been using ABB locomotives (we called them "Meatballs") which were doing a good job, and I myself, had ridden the XP2000 (ABB) and the ICE trains (Siemens) during excursion runs during the days when passenger usage was limited to employees and liked them just fine. During that Bombardier test runs, there were several of us from Amtrak who actually worked hand-in hand with Bombardier and Alstom, but when we reported problems with the brakes and acceleration/deceleration and refused to sign off on the inspection paperwork one of the trainsets for a presentation to the public and media (the "good 'ole dog & pony show") because of the still-present problem with brake pads wearing out too soon, we were all told that were were no longer needed by Bombardier, and were all sent back to Amtrak. Whoever signed off the paperwork remains a mystery to me, but in a sad kind of way, I did feel some satisfaction when the problem with the brakes was finally exposed a few years later, and ALL Acela trains were taken out of service for many, many months. The Bombardier/Alstom locomotives they used to pull the Northeast Regional trains made up with Budd cars? WE HATED THOSE LOCOMOTIVES! They were pigs because the nose of those locomotives was not designed for the 480V cabling system used to mate up with Budd cars because the connectors were too short, so we would have to add an adapter cable & secure them with cable-ties too keep the cables from separating & losing power when going around curves. Not a fun job in freezing, wet weather, or when you are up to your waist in snow between the locomotive & passenger cars. Lol, Amtrak would be better off if they went back to GG-1's and Budd cars. Add a caboose for a little nostalgia and generate some extra money; train buffs & rail fans would line up to ride one. So would I.😉
@10:00, both GE Transportation (now owned by Wabtec) and EMD (now owned by Caterpillar) are US train/locomotive makers. Both of them made mainstays for Amtrak, GE with the GE Genesis and GE E60, EMD with AEM-7 and the F40PH. EMD actually built a competitor to the Siemens Charger based of a design that they used for the LIRR called EMD F125 which ultimately Amtrak didn't choose (but was chosen by the Metrolink).
The LIRR locomotives are flat out junk. They never even came close to meeting their potential.
The F-125s that followed are garbage, too.
Wanna hear a bit of irony? The X2000 sets just recently received an overhaul that extended their already 30 year long career. Even more ironic, the old locomotives that the AEM-7s were based on (And also their even older predecessors of the same model) are still running in regular service.
Amtrak just pulled the new Acela Liberty Trainset #8 out of Penn Station earlier today. Its awesome!
As a Brit I feel there are so many parallels with our infrastructure and industry and the US'. Our railways run pretty fast and frequently with hardly any HS track but management hasn't always been the best leading to decades of underinvestment
Plus, privatisation and the butchering of BREL didn’t help
In the grand scheme of things we do pretty well with rolling stock, especially now that the Pacers have gone. The EC/WC mainlines have some great trains running on them
I hate anti-rail politicians, and I also hate it when people won’t learn to admit they have to invest money sometimes
And I hate when those same hypocrite refuse to admit they dump MUCH MORE money into roads and maintaining the status quo.
I think Amtrak is only now coming out of its "table scraps" mentality in regard to equipment procurement, so time will tell how this second-gen Acela experience goes.
The other reason why the original Acela's were called pigs was that the train cars were built 4" too wide, so the tilt mechanisms could not be used to their full capabilities.
This problem shows up on the old New Haven line tracks in east NY/western CT, where the track centerlines are too close to deploy tilt
Add to that the tunnels in Baltimore which have never been widened or modernized.
Weight. Had to meet FRA buff load standard. These new ones don't. Crash energy mgt is allowed now.
...the heavy weight is why the French called them "pigs". It's also what caused the problems that took them OOS in the beginning.
It was the ICE train crash in Germany, and the resulting carnage, that spooked the Feds into requiring heavier trains.
Looking at what others are doing, taking bits and pieces that aren’t really compatible, trying to do it as cheap as possible, and hobbling new equipment with ancient infrastructure resulting is a much costlier and less efficient option is a VERY American thing to do!
One year later, i was taking a bus into philly, and these trains are still rotting in the yard. It breaks my heart
Its not ENTIRELY fair to criticize Clinton for Amtrak's woes in the 1990s. While no routes may have OPENED then, he WAS responsible (or at least in office for) the extension of electrification to Boston and the introduction of Acela, together with some associated track improvements and grade separations. These took place in 2000, and Clinton left office in January 2001.
Amtrak also got the Viewliner I fleet, the first Talgos (though that was with some state funding), some additional Superliners, the HHP-8 (for whatever that was worth), rebuilds for a large part of the AEM-7 fleet, and the start of the Genesis series.
All of this took place either during Clinton or shortly afterwards (due to lag for construction time).
I use the TGV a few times a year and I'm always impressed by it's technology, ease of use and performance. SNCF didn't try to cut corners, they knew that infrastructure was important to the country and worked with Alstom to build some of the greatest trains on the planet. Having designated lines for HSR has been our downfall... until that happens, it won't matter much WHAT trains are used.
With Stadler now in Salt Lake City complying with the “Buy American Act” you could had some “Girunos”, the IC train we use in Switzerland or maybe buyed some Siemens BR 182.
Both great trains. 👍
I appreciated the history of the current Acela. You really did a great job succinctly summarizing it while teaching me quite a few new things.
only issue i have with this video is that the check mark at 6:38 being the wrong way arround
The loss of the Budd Co was a huge loss for Philadelphia and US manufacturing.
Budd had some of the world's best rolling stock tech at their peak. Nowadays, to see trains built with the latest version of that tech, you gotta go to Latin America or Asia...
@@tl8211GM was selling licenses to European train manufacturers (Nohab) in the 70s, but as network electrified, they became irrelevant.
after seeing this comment i just found out the budd company only went defunt in 2014. we had time to include them in modernization plans and let's be real, anything they built probably would have been 10x more reliable than some french bs.
It sure would be a source of encouragement for American manufacturing if someone would buy up Budd’s IP, find any engineers still around from their glory days, and start up the company again.
@@noahwilliams8918 I doubt the IP would be worth much these days, the last licenses they sold were in the late 80s, a generation ago. A lot has changed in the railway world since.
I just love to imagine the universe where Amtrak went with the X2000 and the NEC was ruled by the Swedes
I think it would have been better that way honestly. X2000 were suited better for the enviroment than both the ICE and the current Acela.
Simple fact you cannot run high speed trains on very old track as in the north east corridor.
Hi Alan,
I find this video very confusing and not as well done as you usually make them. And I wanted to point out a few problems.
A : The first Acela isn’t exactly a TGV Duplex locomotive, but more of a hybrid between a TGV locomotive and a HHP-8 locomotive, which themselves are Alstom BB 36000 derivatives in order to respond to Amtrak’s low cost demand.
B : I don’t exactly understand the “No excuse” part, you say they have no excuses but at the same time you justify why it takes so long, saying there’s nothing fundamentally wrong, because it’s a new product, and that they’re not used to working with Amtrak. Clearly, if Amtrak wanted a proven tilting model, they could have gone with the Alstom AGV, but it was probably too expensive.
And this is where the problem is, Amtrak can’t really expect to have stuff done in a short amount of time without putting in the money, rolling stocks are as much about the rail than the trains themselves. And you can’t have a cheap train done right away because the track needs a tilting train, so it asked for a new development, because cheap high speed tilting trains don’t really exist, hence Alstom having to put out something new.
C : “Good manufacturers” And putting Siemens as one of them. It is quite ironic to criticise Alstom for delays and put Siemens as a counter example when clearly the Charger locomotive series have proven that Siemens isn’t exactly as transparent nor reliable about their own products, what’s more ironic is to put that specific locomotive as the thumbnail. There are many things that could make Siemens not such a good manufacturer especially if we take the history of both companies in HSR. The TGV PSE survived a bombing attack in 1983 going at 100mph while not derailing, it unfortunately killed 6 people because of the explosion. On the other hand the ICE 1 train derailment of 1998 killed over 80 people and simply because of its own design.
Overall I’m sorry Alan, but I really don’t get the point of this video but mere French bashing, because you disqualified your own point about it having no excuses for the new Acela being late. And at the same time you compared Alstom to other companies without really good arguments about them.
However I fully support the idea of renewing the US market to recreate american rolling stock companies. And I hope you correct the video and give us more quality content like you’ve done in the past.
EDIT : Actually with deeper research through the technology of Alstom within the US, the problem that you pointed out Alan is even more out of context. The train modelisation is very particularly a problem to the Avelia and, no, others companies DIDN'T have to model it or at least as deep as the Avelia. Why do you ask? Because they're not tilting trains. Why does it matter? Because hydrolics have to prepare for curves as they can't take it instantaneously so they need a more precise model because the locomotive, pantograph and cars all have to be coordinated. All that while being safe.
If you know any French explanation at 52:00 : th-cam.com/video/10SxyxAOlz4/w-d-xo.html
Yeah, citation required for your debunked fantom “problem with the Chargers”. We’ve had those in operation for about a decade now with none of the issues you foamers claim materializing. They’ve had about the same teething issues that all new equipment has. They’ve dealt with those three same that all manufacturers do. So what is your assertion actually based on here?
I understand that hating the Chargers has become basically a foamer meme at this point, but you’ll have to come up with better evidence than anonymous foamer blog posts if you want anyone to believe you.
Yeah. I thought the Acelas were Duplex locomotives but the motor sounds different.
Yep.
5:52 bro's rockin that Conrail drip 😎
In terms of long distance train stock issues. In 2021 I took the California Zephyr out of Chicago the observation car AC went out the first day and they tried unsuccessfully to get it working during the break at Denver. 2022, the train from Chicago to San Antonio didn't have an observation car and for the most part we were confined to our seats.
It really, REALLY, sucks that there hasn't been any progress (except the Acela project) on high speed rail. Yes, Brightline is playing their game of chess in building HSR infrastructure and so California HSR, but considering how complicated is built any HSR and building or improving existing rail is greatly disappointing.
Yea totally. The thing that would make the new Acela train better is the Hybrid K5LA horn. HYBRID!!!
@@FinnKeehan no, just keep the horn, i like it.
@@ChimmyAnimate really? It sounds like an ambulance siren. I like the hybrid one
@@FinnKeehan It doesn’t matter where it came from, what country it’s from or who made it, these trains are still american because of the rails they are running on.
also, european train horns are equally as loud as a K5LA, trust me
@@ChimmyAnimate ok
Maybe you should talk about the upcoming replacements for third-rail services on Amtrak like the Hudson Line, which has third-rail to a little past Croton-Harmon as it is also ran by Metro North commuter services, though they unfortunately use a different third rail type and is incompatible. If I remember correctly the trainset replacing the Amfleet and P32AC-DMs will be called the Airofleet, using a Siemens Charger variant called the ALC-42E which isn't actually dual-mode capable, and instead uses a battery car in tow, as it really only needs it to get out of the tunnels, a missed opportunity.
the ALC-42E as designed will not be a dual mode for Empire Service duty. it'll be a diesel-electric locomotive on one end, with a battery-electric cab car on the other. they (rather stupidly) will not use third rail at all as a result.
also, the metro north third rail is incompatible with the amtrak third rail used on the hellgate line. metro north third rail (which runs all the way to Poughkeepsie) uses under-running third rail with wider, shorter shoes, while amtrak uses narrower, longer over-running shoes. as a result the P32AC-DM's only run on third rail until they're out of the tunnels; they run on diesel power everywhere else. running on metro north track (such as into grand central) requires modifying the shoe mechanisms for that service.
@@francistheodorecatte I was not aware of this, thank you.
@@francistheodorecatte makes me wonder what they will do with the lakeshore limited. will they use the ALC-42Es to pull the train out of the tunnels? and will it use battery power of third-rail?
We definitely need to invest in Brookville Equipment, the Liberty platform is an excellent product, and their BL36PH seems just as good. Bring back American rollingstock manufacturering, we need it!
the mismatch between the locomotive cross section and rolling stock cross section irritates me so much
The ICE would be an interesting Train Sets for Amtrak but The Eschede Derailment happened, when the Maintenance Team decided that cutting costs on critical maintenance like Fatigue Detectors and using Dual Block Wheels that caused the deaths of 101 out of more than 400 people.
Dear Alan, would love to hear more on the specific ‘points’ where the North East Corridor is so hard to model. Curious to what kind of switches and interlocking Amtrak is faced with. I gather it has to do with speed restrictions, allowed level of tilt and maybe even differences in rail profiles.
As you showed an Acela processing through a level crossing, I say that’s a main problem. For safe and sustainable high speed rail corridors one needs to up the entire track system and as an example, take out the level crossing wherever possible and feasible.
If I look at French or German high speed track, the entire roadbed has seen a makeover. It isn’t just the sleepers, where they are replaced by a kind of concrete channel roadbed, secured on a much more elaborate foundation than a ballast roadbed. Even the rail chairs have been significantly changed and improved, sound deadening is incorporated and the track itself is monitored continuously for maintenance purposes. That in itself entails a different approach to high speed transit.
Time for the US to get back on track! Cheerio
I really *do* like the left-right headlight blinking trains do when crossing roads in the US, though. But yeah if you see an ICE taking a level crossing in Germany then it's because it's driving from one factory it's built in to another, or something like that. Regional service, usually using something like a Bombardier Talent, should see the most crossings as metro systems are again highly grade-separated because of the sheer frequency of trains. S-Bahns will have a mixture of both, only grade-separated on high-throughput roads.
The station along the waterfront in New London CT comes to mind. I'm not sure it would make much sense to build grade separation there anyways, since its built on and between some seriously sharp curves in the track. Maybe New London just needs a new alignment/ station?
Also, can anyone explain the slowness between roughly Bridgeport CT and Rye NY? Is it just the number of curves or is there something else going on with the track?
Connecticut
The only modelling I can think of is vehicle dynamics to make sure train behaves on track as conditions change and track, wheels, suspension wear to limits.
You don't need this to insure safe operation. Periodic and/or continual real world testing would suffice.
It was great meeting you at Illinois Railway Museum! I'm looking forward to more videos.
We in Poland have ALSTOM-FIAT Pendolino trains (max 250 km/h). Currently, a nationwide high-speed railway system is under construction and domestic companies such as PESA and NEWAG are targeted as the main supplier of trains for this investment.
I feel we should also incentive other, non rail based manufacturing companies (Ford, Boeing, etc.) to research and develop their own rolling stock built in the U.S., in order to diversify the ranges of these companies. But until then, I'll continue to stick with Team Siemens since they're providing reliable and luxurious railcars and locomotives to plenty of transit agencies in North America.
Im not so sure about that idea, i think we should just use companies already familiar with that field
Might want to drag EMD back out it's hole.
They made atleast 1 good locomotive within the past 20 years.
We did that in the 70s and Boeing made TERRIBLE LRVs for Boston and SF.
Why would you want to take a company that has technical prowess in one discipline and get them to take a cash grab and make a substandard product in something they have no idea how to make properly?
I'm french, so I'm obviously biased, but we do some nice rolling stock too. Especially on the light rail, but even the TGV is oretty nice.
That said, I'm indeee not exactly convinced Alstom was the best designer for the north East corridor tracks. We are testing pendolino construction, others have been far better than us for longer. Also, sorry for the cars being late :
The Corridor is inadequate for High Speed Rail and equipment, the current Acela's don't even run well on it, the government doesn't care to upgrade it and never will, unless people really want to fight for it, it will never happen.
Climate change means things will come to a head, one way or another.
That’s nonsense. The NEC is about an average HSR corridor by EU standards.
I understand that people want to be all edgy with their “America Bad” criticism, but it’s genuinely misplaced here. If you remove corridors like the NEC from HSR consideration then only four countries in Europe still have HSR.
@@TohaBgood2 No the NEC is nowhere near an average HSR corridor by EU standards.
In Europe, Spain, France, Germany, and Italy have networks, Belgium, the Netherlands and UK have HSR lines. With only Spain and France with true large scale continuous HSR networks.
The NEC is a Frankenstein's creature, a mash-up of many different qualities of track. And the lack of consistency is a real issue.
Any rolling stock happily frolicking on European tracks would have a much harder time on the NEC.
@@KyrilPG Nope. Only France, Germany, Spain, and Italy have actual HSR track. Benelux and the UK have HSR stubs built by the French so that they can spread their TGV products. The actual rail in those countries still tops out at 125 mph at best.
And virtually no HSR services except the ones in Spain run exclusively on a single LGV line. If what you said were actually trued than French TGV would lines would only be able to sell you tickets for a half dozen destination pairs. In reality all of these services travel significant portions of their routes on conventional freight track.
I encourage you to look at the TGV's fleet average in France. Why does the Acela beat the TGV network on average speeds on some years? How would that even be possible? Do TGV trains politely hit the breaks as soon as they reach 125-150 mph so that they don't embarrass their American cousin?
@@TohaBgood2 Gosh, are you a troll or something?
The TGV's run mostly on dedicated tracks. For the main and most traveled destinations, TGV's run only a short distance on legacy tracks before entering the true high-speed backbone lines rated for either 300 or 320kph.
And these legacy tracks are not specifically freight tracks, they are usually 160kph legacy tracks and often 220kph legacy upgraded tracks. The innermost city tracks run at the local service's speed and sometimes faster, like the 220 and 180kph tracks in Paris suburbs next to the RER before accessing the HSL.
The "average speed" you are mentioning takes the whole number of TGV *services* from their origin to their furthest destination, including the "collector" services that run at legacy speeds with multiple stops far from a high-speed line, not counting the ridership nor the fact full speed ones are operated by double length double deckers while the frequent stop destinations far reaching off the high-speed lines are mostly served by single length, single deck trains. That heavily skews the absolute number for average speed for the overall service.
It's like saying NY's subway has an overall 12 minute frequency because some obscure branches have a half hourly or hourly service that tanks the whole average when most riders experience a 3 minute frequency.
A Paris > Toulouse currently runs only 1/4th of the distance on legacy upgraded tracks, while the first 3/4th are run at full speed on dedicated tracks. The vast majority of TGV riders travel between major destinations that are HSL equipped all the way, with only the city center access run on legacy tracks.
A Paris to Bordeaux takes 2h and 4 minutes for roughly 600km with half hourly service at peak, or Paris to Strasbourg in 1h45 for 500km, Paris Marseille in 3h05 for 800+km, Lyon to Marseille in 1h40 for almost 400km, etc. My father uses the Paris Reims TGV regularly, it's 42 minutes and apart for a short distance on legacy tracks to access the HSL, it is run on dedicated tracks.
The lines in UK, Belgium and the Netherlands are true high-speed lines but the ones in Benelux are not even to the highest French or Spanish standards as they don't have bypass tracks around cities to form a continuous network.
HSL 1, 2 and 4 in Belgium run at 300kph and HSL 3 is runs at 260kph, but they are separated trunks, like most European HSL's outside of France and Spain.
HSL Zuid in the Netherlands is more consistent and is the extension of the Belgian HSL 4 but is still cut in two by Rotterdam, lacking a bypass.
The Belgian and Dutch railways don't use rolling stock fast enough to run at the full speed these lines allow, only Thalys, Eurostar and ICE trains run at full speed on these lines.
Yet, they are still true high-speed lines.
Just look for pictures of one of the Belgian HSL's and you'll see that they are very different from the NEC tracks.
There's not even a single mile of true high-speed track in the NEC, and if you want to compare something correctly, compare the NEC with another corridor or the real LGV or LAV *network* , or the Köln Frankfurt corridor, not the "reach" of a service.
What tanks the average speed of the overall TGV *service* are the numerous small Alpine destinations where the TGV's run slow on old tracks for a rather short distance but a long time after having run most of the distance at steady full speed on dedicated tracks.
Like compare with the Paris Bordeaux corridor, where certain services have a 280+ kph average speed, from station to station. Or the Calais Marseille corridor, which is like 99% on dedicated high-speed tracks.
In no way, shape or form does the NEC can be considered similar to the TGV or AVE networks.
Comparing a strict corridor to an entire system with far reaching services is just bad faith. At least compare corridor to corridor, and then you'll find a vastly different result.
Imagine how much money we would have for infrastructure that's actually good for society if we didn't throw so much money at propping up car-culture, cheap gas, and suburban sprawl
Canada also at one time had local rail car producers with Hawker-Siddeley and the Montreal Car Company both of which eventually were bought by Bombardier whose rail division is now owned by Alstom meaning Canada doesn't have any local rail producers anymore. There was once also UTDC which was crown corporation owned by the Ontario Government which developed the technology you see used today in Vancouver, it was sold off to Bombardier in the 90's and the tech became the Innovia line of rolling stock. Fortunately Canada's bus industry has stuck around with New Flyer, Nova, and MCI although there was a fourth in Orion Bus Industries but they were shut down years ago when Daimler got out of the bus business.
Thx for putting this together! It's a complicated subject and this is the best I've seen so far. WSJ is not a balanced story. It will be a good train once it's running.
The short service life of Amtrak trains (edit to clarify: specifically the Acelas, but also the AEM-7's) is puzzling, especially when there's so little capital to go around. The X2000 set that the Swedish state railways loaned to Amtrak in the early 1990's is still in service in Sweden. There's a refurbishment program in progress for the X2000's and there's no plan to take them out of service for the foreseeable future. There are many newer high(-ish) speed EMU's in service now too of course, but the X2000's are still doing their thing.
That isn't a particularly long service life either though. The Swedish Rc4 locomotive that was loaned to Amtrak in _1976_ (no. 1166) for the trials that led to the AEM-7 is _also_ still in service in Sweden. The Rc locomotives are gradually being withdrawn from passenger services and replaced with quicker-accelerating EMU's, but there's still several hundred of them around. The oldest ones still in service (Rc2, 100 freight service units geared for 135 km/h (84 mph) delivered 1969-1975) recently got a big upgrade program and are now designated Rd2 - they'll stay in freight service for many years to come. I also expect Rc locomotives to keep handling all sleeper services for the foreseeable future.
On poor or lower priority railways the rolling stock can last even longer; the Roslagsbanan narrow gauge commuter service that was under constant threat of shutdown in the 1970's and 1980's had self-powered railcars from the 1910's in service well into the 1990's. (Fortunately this service has received substantial investments since and it's being expanded again.)il
Short life of Amtrak trains? Amfleet anyone?
@@davidsixtwo Meant to say "short service life of the Acelas". But still, the AEM-7's are long gone but their Swedish counterparts from the early 1970's are chugging along. The oldest ones still in service (Rc2, produced 1969-1975) have had significant upgrades, but the ones contemporary with the AEM-7 are mostly in original configuration still.
@@renhanxueit’s because of the backwards way funding works in the US. It’s very difficult to convince our shortsighted government to spend big money on things with long term benefits like new rail infrastructure, because why should any House rep approve a project they’re potentially unlikely to see the end of if it’s not in an election year when they need the votes. It’s easier to convince them to buy a flashy new train set every few years because “oh wow it’s new and I get to be the congressperson who inaugurates it before the end of my term.” It’s stupid. And it sucks. But that is our unfortunate reality at the moment here.
@@renhanxue It's an interesting argument, but I've never heard anyone boast about which rail service has the oldest trains, at least outside of nostalgia. When Germany or Switzerland get a new fleet, it seems to be received well.
@@davidsixtwo It's not boasting, rather the opposite. Of course newer trains would be better, but railways are underfunded here too, and refurbishing old trains is cheaper - at least in terms of capex - than buying new ones. In an ideal world we would've built actual high-speed alignments and the X2000's would at best be relegated to peripheral lines. Instead they're still doing their thing on the highest traffic intercity services in the country. What I'm saying is that Amtrak seems to want more than it can really afford.
Hearing that the current acela's are being replaced after 20 years and the new ones potentially lasting the same time is odd, being from the UK. We have fleets that generally get pushed through to 35-40 years generally. Raises the question, how long should rolling stock generally be in service for?
For as long as the frame keeps intact.
the wear and tear in the US is a lot harsher then in Europe generally so rolling stock last a lot shorter
The X2000 set that the Swedish state railways loaned to Amtrak in the early 1990's is still in service in Sweden. There's a refurbishment program in progress for the X2000's and there's no plan to take them out of service.
That's baby tier though; the Swedish Rc4 locomotive that was loaned to Amtrak in 1976 for the trials that led to the AEM-7 is _also_ still in service in Sweden. The Rc locomotives are gradually being withdrawn from passenger service in favor of quicker-accelerating EMU's, but there's still hundreds of them in service, especially in freight.
Japan replaces it's shinkansen after 20 years. Across most of Europe we run trains for longer. Germany still had ICEs running from 1990.
It is easier to keep very old rolling stock in service, because it is easier to source the electromechanical parts.
I have some experience in train-spare parts procurement and replacing somewhat modern parts (late 90's - early 2000s) that use obsolete technical standards or proprietary technology of defunct comanies can be challanging and / or expensive. There are computers on fairly modern trains that still run windows 3.1. Trains use an early form of 2g to communicate. Therefore, the lifetime of trains will probably shorten, if a redesign that replaces / overhauls whole systmes is not done and depending on how standards change.
It would also be nice if we didn’t have stringent regulations, so that way we could we just order off-the-shelf trains from Europe or Japan and just have them assembled here. Instead of us having to make these difficult custom train sets.
Regarding the wing on a pantograph, in the uk we have several trains with them, seems like it's a standard pantograph that's used across classes. They're usually on the pivot point on the V part of the pantograph (I hope ppl understand what I mean there I have no idea on the correct technical terms)
I worked on these trains and I have to say: the NEC is abysmal to model. Variable line voltages, dramatic dips in current, rampant cantenary transients, I could go on. The lack of standardization is on another level compared to the rest of the world. Custom solutions engineered independently state by state throughout the system (think bridges running on Windows XP next to a switch from 1890 maintained by a surely pentioner). Alstom has their hands full trying to make something remotely modern that can adapt to these variables to say the least.
The problem with the Washington-Boston corridor is not rolliing stock, it's a road bed, parts of which predate the Civil War; still has grade-level street crossings, and has too many curves which can't be negotiated at high speeds. Fix those problems, then worry about rolling stock.
I took the Acela from 30th Street to Union station in DC a few months ago, and I was really impressed at how nice it was. The windows are large and there's a lot of space, even in coach! I took the TGV first class in France this summer and while it was good it wasn't quite as nice as Acela (although the SNCF TGV network is much better).
Nice, but too slow. Amtrak didn't get the ridership they expected, and this loss of revenue meant no new Superliners. Ever.
@@tonyburzio4107 Yeah, it's also usually really expensive to go even a short distance. It got me to DC pretty quickly, but going to NYC it's barely faster than regular Amtrak, and it just doesn't justify the price.
@@tonyburzio4107it’s not that slow
20 years is a really short service live for a high speed train. I can understand it somewhat on regional rail. Especially with the pace of inprovment in EMUs (in Europe). The ICE1 (which also visited the US back than) is on the rails since 1991. Deutsche Bahn intends to retire the senior by 2030. The sets hat refurbishments from 2005 to 2008.
Since 2020 the have their second refurbishment. And honestly you don’t see the age (on the inside).
But I won’t be sad when they are gone. I’m very curious what the ICE 5 will bring to the table
It’s sort of mind-boggling to me that the Acela is barely one year older than the ICE 3 and exactly as old as an ICE T. Basically, instead of bodging together a half-assed tilting TGV they could have just waited like two more years and buy an americanized version of the ICE T instead.
@@ft4709 Well.. the ICE T is one of the less reliable ones in the ICE family, so i believe there would have bin troubles either way. But at least it would have been an actually consistent design, that was not fused together in a weird way.
But there is another major problem: crash safety regulations for trains in the US.
As the video mentions the TGV locos had to be reinforced, to meet the standart. The issue with teh ICE T is that it is an EMU. And a lightweight one out of alluminium to make it worse. For people unfamiliar with the ICE T it has a super short "nose" and the passengers sit right behind the driver.
To change the design so that it can pass theese tests must be a mayor challenge, if not impossible!
Reinforce a locomotive at some points and make if heavier seems like an easy task in comparisson.
Some private High Speed Projects, like Brightline West or the one in texas or also california hsr, use Siemens ICE 3 ( or rather Velaro, to be exact) style trains in their promo material and visulizations. I wonder if they want to really reinforce the train platform or they hope that they can get an exception from that rule.
Siemens might try to cut a deal, when they are willing to bring the construction to the US.
Some story that i find a bit amusing, as a german:
There is some connection in california, called the sprinter, that uses a small EMU ( Siemens Desiro) , that is typically used as a regional and commuter train in Germany and elsewhere in Europe.
But because that cute thing is way to fragile to withstand mayor crashes, it was actually classified as light rail service in order for it to be legal
Simply Railways has a great video on it youtube.
The ICE-T uses Alstom tilting technology. Appart from that it shares a lot of technology with the ICE3. I think it would be smarter to go with a standard Pendolino, since this is a more mature and proven platform. If it can run through poland, greece and portugal, it must be able to handle the NEC.
That X2000 Amtrak tested is still running in Sweden. So is the original Swedish meatball...
yeah. The first TGV's lasted 40 years. The TGV's can last at least 30 though. After 15 years, the TGV's go into a midlife operation where the trains have their interiors renovated and repainted.
Penny for your thought: how are acela’s even affordable for most people. Anytime I see it as an option it is around 125-200 per ticket?
Cheaper than some airlines but more expensive than budget ones
they are 60 booked in advance
They are wayyyy too expensive yes, but these new trains will add seats and round trips. Hopefully the extra supply pushes prices down a bit
Same in Germany, just be early and have luck
Easy, just subsidize them as much as planes are subsidized or stop subsidizing planes.
Partial disagreement that this is the first time Alstom has had a launch customer for a new platform be someone other than Amtrak: NTV (Italo) in Italy was the launch customer of the AGVs, for instance, the first distributed traction TGV model (a true EMU), and effectively the first generation of this design, preceding the Avelia Liberty.
(As for the current Acelas, I think the power cars most remind me of the Thalys PKBA power cars, and I suspect they share a lot in common, more so than with the TGV Duplex.)
But for NTV they run on a true HSR infrastructure whit not a mix like NEC, and more over, here in italy and the rest of Europa hs train are politension elettric,
Regarding the domesticalicity: iirc there is the "build america act" or something that specifies how much of a railcar must be made Inside the US, a lot of subcontractors can participate from this and maybe band together to start their own rolling stock cobpany
I was a freight engineer/conductor on a regional, went to Amtrak as a conductor and only stayed for about a year. Easy job, great coworkers, schedule wasn't too bad. The biggest reason I left; I absolutely hated the newer Siemens equipment. The Chargers are unreliable, un-ergonomic/awkward to work on and around. They and the venture cars are over-engineered to their own detriment. The Venture cars kept going in and out of service as they would fix one issue just for another one to pop-up. It takes three separate keys to operate the cars and every car has its own computer system which doesn't allow the crews to adjust anything (hvac, speaker volume, etc). The Siemens techs couldn't even figure out how to adjust anything. It got to the point thatI would pray for a clapped out P42 and some equally worn horizons or amfleet cars to be in the consist because I knew I'd at least have a better chance of getting through the day without issues.
When we trained in Philly they were testing the Alstom train sets and it seemed like every other day or two we'd hear about more problems with them. It baffles me that instead of cutting losses, Amtrak always seems to double down and purchase more of the same junk. While I miss interacting with passengers and wearing the suit, I am glad to be back to working on reliable freight equipment again.
Totally off topic but I'm still so sad that the split flap display board in Philadephia is gone. It was there when I visited in 2017 but it's gone now. The world's largest that's still operating is in Frankfurt Terminal 1 Departures.
The good news is that as far as US rail stations go, they’re still operating in New Jersey! Secaucus Junction (which has a BUNCH of them in different colors for the lines that stop there), Atlantic City Rail Terminal, and the Trenton Transit Center all have them!
It's coming back (but only as decoration since it isn't ADA compliant)
@@AverytheCubanAmericanThe old "Solari & Co." board (which is the Italian company who made these things) at Newark Penn has unfortunately been replaced however. The replacement is LCD, which really does a good job of replicating the look. It even plays a recording of the flaps moving, to let you know the status has changed.
Remember, both the X2000 and the ICE were running under waiver from FRA. Production trains would have required strengthening to meet FRA buff strength at a minimum.
I as a German find it funny how you make Siemens the Alpha, cause just like France is the testground for Alstom, we are the testground for Siemens, and damn did we face issues with the ICE 3, which later became the Velaro, before we could start selling them to EVERYONE. Like, international market share of the Velaro is insane, if anyone had told us that in the 90s, nobody would have believed you.
Same for other models, the chargers and the ACS are both slightly modified locomotives tnat were heavily tested here beforehand, and then they just build it in the US because of your weird "Buy american" rule
Ice 3 has epic sounds The ICE 3 neo is straight up heaven
It’s not weird to ensure self-reliance so that you don’t rely on other countries
They should simply order Siemens Velaro. California HSR, operate by DB (German Railway/Deutsche Bahn) and buy Siemens Velaro 🙌
Pretending that Clinton could get any spending passed when Republicans have the house (and senate?) Is quite the Bernie Bro take.
We think you’ve missed the true failing of the new Acela sets: the powercars and coaches don’t match up. The powercars are slabsided, and the coaches bow out. Clearly all of the problems you mentioned would be solved if someone just stapled a pice of fiber glass to each side of the powercars to smooth out the transition.
THIS has been pissing me off with every single picture of the Acelas I look at!!! The lower blue third of the sides doesn't line up in pictures and it makes me go mental!
Also the livery is trash. Remember the concept video they put out like SEVEN YEARS AGO?! That was much better.
3:10 I love LRCs dude
Switzerland got burned with Bombardier as well, even though we have Stadler in the country.
Your comments about the loss of rolling stock mfrs in this country are so true. Especially the Budd Company. The Amfleet cars that were built in the seventies are still in service and last year NYCTA retired subway cars made by Budd in the early sixties. The cars were going to be retired in 2000 but they lasted till 2022. That should tell how well they were built.
You're absolutely right. We should be supporting companies that specialize in rolling stock
Excellent video.
.
One problem is that currently the US market for passenger train is very small. Amtrak has roughly as many trains as the Swiss Federal Railways (SBB/CFF/FFS), and Switzerland is a very small country (8 Million people), so Stadler has a similar home market than a US manufacturer would have, and they are very export oriented - you find KISS and FLIRT train-set in many countries. Also the US market is special (crash regulations, tracks designed for heavy and slow cargo trains, heavy reliance on diesel power, not using UIC standards) mean a US company would struggle to strive abroad…
The CTA still operates the 2600-Series cars which were built by Budd in the 1980s.
The current Acelas were all made by Bombardier Transportation (which no longer exists). Bombardier had acquired the rights to build TGVs in North America. (since Alstom at the time had no presence here). So both locos and cars were made by Bombardier in Vermont (and I think portions at its Plattsburg NY plant).
The coaches have NOTHING to do with the LRC cars. NOTHING. NIL NADA.
The LRCs were build of aluminium frames and skin, built with low centre of gravity and light (hence the L) and had very mechanical tilting system that was quidckly turned off by VIA rail because it made people sick. It exceeded strenght/crash standards of the time, in the 1970s but then FRA decided to try to help Budd (steel only) by making it harder to have foreign trains in America.
When Amtrak called for bids, very few were interested because of the need to downgrade their trains to meet FRA standards and this is very costly endeavour.
The X2000 from Sweden was steel however it was now owned by AdTranz (ABB and Daimler Benz) which wanted out of the business and sold to Bombardier Transportation in 2001.
So Bombardier bid and won.
Bombardier designed the train from scratch since it had to be heavy and steel to meet FRA political standards and had to source components from USA due to "made in America", so nothing in common with LRC, nothing in common with TGV, except some of the designs for the power/traction motors. It has 0 commonality with the LRC.
It is possible that the tilting mechanics (where levers are ocated relative to bogie/car chassis) may have been inspired form LRC, but that designed is fairly coimmon. The controls would have been electronic and new and certaintly not from the original LRC whose tilting nechanism had long been disabled.
The first generation LRCs were purely all relay/mechanical systems because the railways had been overwhelved hy the fancy aircraft stuff in the United Aircraft TurboTrain and when CN spoke with MLW who designed the LRC, it wanted a simpler train that could be maintained by its maintenance crews used to maintaining steam trains. So instead of fancy electronics, it was relays. The rapid failure and unreliability of these systems lead Bombardier to update them for the second order to include some basic electronics. In later revisions done by VIA, more systems were changed to more modern electronics inludihjg adding hot wheel detectors etc.
The LRC was join venture by MLW (Montreal Locomotive Works) Alcan (aluminium) and Dofasco (steel bogies). Before it started deliveries MLW was purchased by Bombardier so it was delivered as a Bombardier product though not designed by them. (as with almost all Bombardier transportation products in its lifetime).
There is little interest for an order for 20 train sets that are custom made and would only ever be sold to Amtrak as a one-off and never sold anywhere else because nowhere else would be interested in a downgraded train to meet FRA standards. So it was easy for Bombardier to win the contract. Not so easy for it to deliver. Considering it was a one off, totally new design, the startup problems were not that bad (certaintly not as bad as the LRC when it was introduced).
US high speed rail started in the early 20th century. The NYC RR broke the 100mph record.
Alstom also has more than one fleet of trains in the UK that should have been in service a couple years ago, but are still sat in sidings and doing occassional test runs, along with delayed introduction of a lot of other fleets of the same type (the aventra was designed by bombardier, but Alstom bought out their european railway business)
Alstom bought out all of Bombardier's rail business, not just the European business...
i thought the rail business was based in europe i was just trying to seperate it from the airliner business
It's funny how you can point out that multiple customers are having issues with Alstom products, yet you'll continue to see French simps insisting that it's our fault, not theirs. Absolutely nothing will convince them otherwise, it seems.
I find it deeply disturbing that train enthusiasts remain willfully ignorant of the issues with high speed trains operated by Amtrak in the Northeast Corridor. The NE was the mainline of the Pennsylvania RR from NY to Philly and down to DC. It was a 4 track system and it operated everything from local freight, long haul freight, commuters and long haul passenger service. It was the only major US corridor converted to electricity and the most densely used one in the world. The road bed goes back to the 1850's and the catanary system is 1930's.
The Pennsy managed to juggle all of that and let the Metroliner trains run an aggressive 120 mph in the late 50's and 60's. However, the Pennsy in the early 50's determined that they needed a new highspeed corridor and began to aquire options on land by 1954. The route they designed was from NYC to DC, but they also intended to extend the line to Chicago via Harrisburg, PA, Pittsburgh, Cleveland Detroit and finally Chicago. In fact the Pennsy was cutting edge on highspeed rail until the mid 1960's. The first bullet trains were test beds built by United Tech for the Pennsy and tested to 150 mph on short runs of upgraded track, but the financial problems of the 60's cut funds and the Pennsy abandon the work which was in final testing. The bullet train tech was sold to Japan and became the first generation of Bullet trains in service in Japan. Why di Pennsy drop it? The cost of the new rail corridor was exploding.
When Amtrak was formed, Congress in typical political fashion cut deals and grabbed the NE corridor for Amtrak, BUT wrote into the law that they had to run commuter services as deemed needed by the locals, continue freight access and then cut budgets to the bone. They were warned they needed to build new freight lines to start with and commuter lines needed to be separated where possible, but the politicians rejected the costs. The new Hudson River tunnel is the only part of the long term Pennsy plan that is being executed. When proposed in the 00's, it had a $2.5 billion tag using the Pennsy design with upgrades. The politicians have since bloated it to over $20 billion with no change in =train capacity because the are dim light bulbs .
The entire catenary system needs to be replaced along with the electrical systems supporting it. However that means changing things on thousands of trains to meet a new electrical standard. Mega $$$ and Congress won't pay. Freight continues to use the rails because it is the only access to the ports. And Politicos are demanding MORE commuter trains on the right of way making it impossible to run dedicated high speed lines. Why does Amtrak only buy 40 Acela sets? Because the are still using Metroliners older than most employees on the same tracks. Why? Because Congress won't do anything to move commuter trains to dedicated lines clearing rail for Amtrak who can not even control their own rail. Congress would also have to give them $15 BILLION to replace all the older trains to run just high speed on the rails the could block out. The harsh truth is the NE corridor can never be high speed until the commuters are moved to new track and the freight services are given their own branches to service the ports and industry.
Maybe Amtrak should look at what Brightline has done here in Florida. Granted it is not a 200mph trainset, but will be able to maintain 125 on most of the track that has been constructed. Brightline has taken a whole different approach to building and operating a railroad and hopefully it will spread to other parts of the country.
Yes, that's right when wondering how to get its new high-speed trains capable of 160 mph that will run on a wholly electrified at most four tracked fully grade separated between Washington and New Haven up and running Amtrak should look to a company running the exact same diesel trains that Amtrak runs in the Midwest, on non-grade separated, non-electrified track where every fortnight some Floridian dies after having driven around the boom gates. Brightline trains have a max speed of 79 mph while Amfleets (Amtraks Budd workhorses from the 70's) go 110 mph from Washington to New York. Come on let's be serious here. Like in what way has Brightline taken a "whole different approach to operating a railroad" other than introducing airport style security?
The Brightline diesels have been tested at least 130 mph, IIRC.
@@geraiswaiya2347 Brightline uses the same locomotives that Amtrak does and they have a top speed of 125mph. Also, it doesn't matter how fast they can theoretically go, it matters how fast they are allowed to go which in this case is 79mph.
@@livgalbraith6531You mean 125 MPH?
@@livgalbraith5538brightline west will be on a dedicated track and will be "high speed"by definition, unlike Florida. It's electric, which California likes on their end for meeting emissions goals. Nevada side likes it for tourism and traffic. I'm certain CA will screw up their connecting lines, but at least it's something
Great Video however there are just a few point that you were slightly mistaken on but your concept was spot on .
1) the original Acela sets were produced by Bombardier of Canada the power car tech, prime mover and various items were from Alstom, which they sent to Bombardier for the Acela.
2) the Original Acela;s could have been lighter however Bombardier and Amtrak had to use 1990's FRA regulations , even though A waiver was asked for as new rules were set to be released a few year later in the 2000s it was denied and the Acela's stayed overweight due to antiquated FRA specs, for the trains to be released for revenue service on time.
3) Bombardier is now defunct and was sold to Alstom back in 2021.
4) In 2016 when Amtrak went with Alstom for the new Acela's they really had no other choice ! During the life of the original Acela's, Amtrak was back and forth with Bombardier with Multiple bitter lawsuits. Amtrak blamed bombardier of faulty products and Bombardier hit back because of how many changes Amtrak kept making while in production of the train, which Bombardier made grudging at Amtrak's request thing that were never part of the original deal. This made every other Rail Manufacture out there pretty much say Heck NO ! when Amtrak came asking for builder's of Acela GEN 2.
5) The new Acela's are not brand new, there actually Modified Alstom Italy "ITALIO" AGV trains that have been around for a few years, Alstom saw the writing on the wall from the Bombardier fiasco and let Amtrak know up front they will NOT design a new train just for them but will Modify the AGV to meet FRA crash worthiness and US standards, however as there finding out other specs for American track, switches, and station specs are not what was expected..
6) Notice even Cali is not getting there own "new" trains, there new caltrain and HSR sets will be off the shelf European equipment that's modified for American use.
We were robbed of the X2000!
1:35 Ah yes, the Metroliner, my favorite middle finger to aerodynamics.
This man objectively has the best thumbnails.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
3:00 The acronym "LRC" was chosen because it works in both English and French: "Light, Rapid, Comfortable" and "Léger, Rapide, Comfortable".
This video is actually the first time I learned what is an Acela trains is.
I thought they were supposed to come into service in Fall 2023.
It seemed a bit strange to me that people are upset with Alstom, generally when you give them good instructions and money they make you good trains, especially for metro and regional trains, something similar happens with Siemens
If you want a cheap train you would have to go with CAF or CRRC to have something "decent", and even then there are no guarantees
I say it's all domestic fault, the entire North American train system looks like something out of the 40's
The US railroads in the 40s were arguably better
CAF trains are so not comfortable
The wings on the pantograph is for the train to have extra downforce 😂😂
Hi Alan, Speaking as a Brit that represented the Professional Head of Railway Operations, for rolling stock acceptance, signalling systems and EU Directives, I found you make some excellent points, but missed a lot ! I have spent time with AMTRAK, Alaska Railroad, White Pass & Yukon, VIA Rail Canada, Tshiuetin, Ontario Northland, Rocky Mountaineer, GO Transit, AMT Montreal, WCE Vancouver etc. I have done TGV Duplex, Atlantique, Reseau, etc. and ICE3, SJ's X2000 tilting trains and been on the footplate across a few continents. The "wings" or aerofoils on pantographs are quite normal, in Britain they date from the Bracknell Willis High Speed Pan on Class 87s, a loco first introduced with an older pan design in 1976.
The characteristics of British / European track and US / Canadian track is most pronounced, with yourselves having a 40 ton axle load increasing to 60 tons; whilst the UK has the heaviest in Europe at 25 tons. France is 22.5 tons and Norway is 15 tons.
North American track is largely owned by the freight companies and freight is king. Here in the UK and Europe, passenger trains take precedence, well at least until the Track Access Agreements saw Signalmen (Dispatchers in US speak) no longer regulate trains to let the passenger go first.
The heavier North American axle weight is for your double stack containers, and also because of your higher rolling stock standard for crashworthiness. Here in the UK and Europe the emphasis is on crash prevention, rather than crash mitigation. Our trains have lower crash worthiness, as all UK lines have Train Prevention & Warning System which has cut SPADs (signals passed at danger) by 75%, and the remaining 25% are stopped within the signal overlap (i.e. the bit of track beyond the red signal in which no other train or conflicting movement should be). In France, their Automatic Train Prevention, which is a SIL4 system (fails once every 35,000 years) is TVM440 and since introduction in 1980, has eliminated all collisions. A lighter weight train, can go faster and not cause so much track damage and hence not so much need for speed restrictions brought about by track defects.
AMTRAK brag that Acela is the faster train in the western hemisphere, which it blatantly is not. West of the Greenwich Meridian sits large parts of Britain, France Spain etc. all of which have some routes that do 185 mph to 200 mph (in France, e.g. Lyon to Marseille). Acela only does 150 mph, and that is not Washington to Boston, but through ONE STATION ONLY. The rest of the time Acela does 125 mph, or 110 mph, or less.
Train speed is wholly dependent on the speed of the train in front. No point doing 150 mph, if the train in front is only doing 75 mph. So AMTRAK need to eliminate bottlenecks, slow speed turnouts, and ideally build a dedicated high speed line, so all Acelas can run 150 mph or higher Washington to Boston for the entire journey, except for a few stops, like New York, and minor halts like that ! LOL !
You are right to point out the benefits of home-grown rolling stock manufacturers, because there is no substitute for local knowledge on the railway. I thought General Electric was also on the US side of Lake Erie ?
I am horrified that AMTRAK and VIA Rail Canada have opted for the Siemens loco to replace the beloved P42DCs and F40PH-2s etc. Siemens had some disasters in Britain and Europe. Their Desiro EMUs (Class 444s and 450s) caused new rails to need replacing on the routes they operate, and the Desiro DMU (Class 185) is so heavy, it has time penalties. Whilst in Norway the Siemens Di 6 was so dreadful, 11 out of 12 locos bought were out of service, and the 12th loco, famously derailed and the cab separated from the loco body, with the driver (Engineer in US speak) still in the cab as it plummeted down a mountainside.
Personally, when I use AMTRAK I try to ensure I have a comfy Amfleet 1 built by Budd. I opt for coach class rather than business, as if the aircon fails in the business/cafe car, it gets hot as well as interruptions from passing diners. The ACS-64 is okay. But the P42DC (and P32-AC-DM) rule okay.
France has built 8 high speed lines, and 12 more are under construction to be completed soon. The next generation of high speed is aimed to be 250 mph, and the TGV Duplex has already achieved 357 mph on test - see TH-cam. Within the next 50 years, who knows 500 mph might be achievable. That will give your domestic airlines a run for their money !
Nice to hear an American who is pro-rail. Keep up the good work. Regards, Vic from London, England.
Feel like you're being a bit ungenerous here. Western hemisphere in a political sense is popularly understood to refer to anything on the Western side of the Atlantic, like the US wasn't applying the Monroe doctrine to Ireland. Also, the freight thing isn't really relevant at all since the Acela runs exclusively on tracks owned by Amtrak from DC to New York and then a combo of Metro-North and State DOTS north of New York. I think Amtrak does the dispatching for whole corridor, possibly excepting the Metro North section but would need someone more knowledgeable than me to confirm that. Freight is absolutely not king on the NEC, passenger rail is.
The Acela does 150 on a few sections of track, most notably in central jersey and in Mass. Also as a point of comparison 150 is faster than anything on the East Coast Mainline in Britain which maxes out at 125. There is nothing wrong 125 mph though and the real slog is Connecticut which is like that because the track snakes along the coast and the towns don't feel like supporting straightening it out. As a result rail is highly competitive between Washington and New York but not necessarily between Washington and Boston.
You're right about the Amfleets though, the most comfortable trains around (excepting an AC breakdown).
@@livgalbraith5538 I am not talking local colloquialisms. Firstly because that is NOT the definition of what constitutes the Western Hemisphere. Secondly, because if you use local colloquialisms, what is a common phase or use where you live, could have a totally different meaning somewhere else. In fact, you eloquently make my own argument for me ! Thank you.
West of the Greenwich Meridian includes parts of UK's HS1 (which is 186 mph) and parts of France and Spain whose TGVs and AVEs also do 186 mph, west of Greenwich.
@@vicsams4431 alright no need to get upset. It's not a colloquialism, both encylopedia brittanica and several dictionaries give the definition of Western Hemisphere as a metonym for the Americas and as used by geographers anything west of the prime meridian. In fact Western Hemisphere is defined by US law as anything West of the Atlantic and is used by the State Department, Congress and other institutions in this sense. Amtrak is fully within it's rights to claim it has the fastest train in the Western Hemisphere, it is an American company catering to Americans who will all understand that fastest train in the Western Hemisphere does not include France or Spain or that brief bit of HS1 that I guess is technically west of Greenwich. Dunno what else to tell you except that there are better things in life to rage about than the fact that Western Hemisphere has both a geographic and a political meaning.
@@livgalbraith6531 Typical Yank. Thinks the world ends at Maine. Thinks US law applies everywhere. Unable to admit you are wrong. None of which alters the facts.
Apparently you don’t know what western hemisphere is since it’s basically the north and south American continents
BTW I’d love to see a video on the Metroliner cars and SPV’s, you would probably have a great perspective on it.
They’re not expecting these things to go into service until at least summer 2024 now.
It's probably because these new trainsets have Jacobs bogies and they behave differently than the old, sloppy 2-separate-bogies-per-car method we've used for 150 years, and all the old fuddy-duddy scientists from the engineering firms can't handle learning something new...
It has to be said:
Well um awctually the metroliner was the fastest trian in the world at the time and was technically considered high speed rail, also the high speed ground transporation act was the true start of highspeed rail in the US and gave PRR, Penn Cnetral and later Amtrak the money to start investing into its services btween DC and NYC.
Alan doesn't realize the fatal mistake he has made and I will make a long and detailed comment that no one will read but I get to feel smug.
An Acela doing 150mph, on freight train track, where theres a CN train rockin along at a blistering 50mph
Heh -- yeah, for the 50 miles or so where the right-of-way allows the Acela to reach its top speed.
Just out of curiosity, has the USA ever blamed itself for something?
Only when winning.
You missed the part about the tracks and supporting domestic train manufacturers.
When we won ww2 by ourselves but didn’t fight the Russians next to expel communism
...the original Acela wasn't the first dealings Amtrak had with a French company. Back in the 1970s they operated turbine powered train sets on the Chicago - Detroit, Chicago - Milwaukee, and Chicago - St Louis corridors. THe trains used, referred to as ATGs, were built by ANF of France and operated from 1973 to 1981. Three of the six train retired sets were rebuilt and put into service on the Empire corridor where they served from 1988 to 1994. being taken out of service after one caught fire in Peen Station New York (ironically on September 11th of that year).
So i actually know some other details about this from a different perspective. I worked the first 10 years of my career so far in Metal based product manufacturing ( out of Rochester NY). I worked for two different competing companies that both had Alstom as a customer. What I can say is that Alstom does use some American manufacturing for what it does, but they bid out different parts and part packages to small contract manufacturers like those I worked for. The reason that they do this is because they are a foreign company, so they save shipping costs from overseas producers. But as I'm sure Alan here understands, using contractors usually costs more because you have a lot more shipping from contractor to contractor and market up after mark up. This brings up the other reason Alstom uses American contractors, and that's because small American contractors are non-union shops with less regulation. being a European company, Alstom holds its own internal practices to a more European standard, They are union and hold high regulatory standards. This was a major point of contention with one of the companies i worked for and ultimately was why my employer chose to end their business with Alstom, and i know this to be true because my employer- was my Father.
Thanks for the flash of the Budd built logo. They were an amazing company.
Alstom's rolling stock business in the US is much larger than Siemens', even more since the merger with Bombardier. It makes completely sense for Amtrak to continue working with them, moreover Siemens does not master tilting train technology as much as Alstom who bought the Pendolino manufacturer a few years ago.