From: cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca   
      
   On Tue, 03 Jun 2014 17:54:42 -0400, Jishnu Mukerji   
    wrote:   
      
   >On 6/2/2014 12:21 PM, Clark F Morris wrote:   
   >> It would be interesting to see if one of the serviceable E-units could   
   >> handle and improve on the schedules of the Cascade Talgos.  Could two   
   >> handle a set if one couldn't?  A single E-Unit could handle 5   
   >> streamlined cars on scheduled of 85 minutes or less with 4   
   >> intermediate stops on the C&NW with a top speed of 100 mph on admitted   
   >> relatively flat terrain.   Could they be allowed higher speeds in the   
   >> curves because of the lower weight and forces on the track/  This   
   >> experiment could lead to better locomotives for higher speed   
   >> equipment.  I know that when I saw the axle load for the Siemens high   
   >> speed diesels, I had the belief that all involved should be fired and   
   >> any money given to consultants should be reclaimed with interest.   
   >>   
   >> Clark Morris   
   >>   
   >   
   >Considering that no one was fired and no money was returned with   
   >interest, one could surmise that the people making the decisions simply   
   >don;t agree with your point of view. Note that I am not making a value   
   >judgement about your opinion. Just stating what I observe relative to   
   >the people who are the decision makers these days.   
   >   
   >I am quite sure two Es duly re-engined and rebuilt from ground up, which   
   >is what will be needed to me Tier IV regulations, can handle a Talgo   
   >rather nicely. But as has been stated by others, there are other better   
   >options that should be considered. I doubt that one needs to run an   
   >experiment to prove the obvious again, except to satisfy us railfans dreams.   
   >   
   >AFAIK, the same underbalance rules apply to both the E units and the   
   >Siemens Vectron based engines, so there will be no difference in maximum   
   >speeds that they are allowed around similar curves. And of course   
   >nothing is going to run above 110mph without sealed corridor anyway no   
   >matter how light and fleet footed they are.   
      
   Because the E units have 6 axles, the individual axle load should be   
   less and it would be interesting to compare centers of gravity.  I   
   have just re-read Hans-Joachim Zierke's discussion of tilting body   
   equipment and axle loads at http://zierke.com/shasta_route which is   
   one of the things that inspires my comments.  Note the comparison with   
   the Spanish diesels on   
   http://zierke.com/shasta_route/pages/19shastatrains2.html.   
   >   
   >The sour point really is the restrictions on underbalance enforced by   
   >the FRA. The Acelas for example are capable of handling greater   
   >underbalance than what FRA allows, and that adversely affects overall   
   >running times.   
      
   Given the weight of the Acela, what would this due to track   
   maintenance?   
      
   Clark Morris   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)