From: cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca

On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 16:25:31 -0000 (UTC), bob  wrote:

>> snip
>
>The problem with this line of reasoning is it supposes that buying from a
>US supplier is an affordable option. If you take the cost involved in
>developing the technology to design a 200 mph tilting electric trainset
>based on the experience available to US suppliers, and spread it across the
>number of units that the demand for NEC traffic requires, the unit cost
>would be far beyond what Amtrak could afford. The question is therefore not
>one of "buy American or buy European" but of "buy European or don't buy
>anything".  Is it better for the US railway industry to have part of
>something or all of nothing? What about the benefits to the wider economy
>that comes from having a better railway connection? It's a choice between
>having part of the profits from building some trains plus the benefits of
>having a better railway, or not having any of that.

The only 300+ kilometers per hour trains that I know of that may tilt
are the Talgo sets on the Madrid - Barcelona line.  I am fairly
certain that all of the Pendolinos are limited to 250 kilometers per
hour or less.  I also am concerned about the single locomotive
mentioned in terms of axle load.  In Europe where heavy freight at 80
kilometers an hour is limited to a 27 metric ton axle load, trains
that tilt and those that are faster than 249 kilometers an hour are
limited to 17 metric tons and other higher speed trains to 22 metric
tons.  In the US I believe the freight axle load is 36.5 US tons so
the axle loads of the diesel passenger locomotives of 33 - 35 US tons
seems high.  I would believe 28 - 31 US tons for those locomotives and
26 US tons as the upper limits to be more reasonable.

Clark Morris
>
>Robin

--- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
 * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)