In <3u4usb19s9k02kunavbrqil82ghen0qh5s@4ax.com>, Clark F Morris 
cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca> writes:
>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

The US rail industry has invested in technology to raise allowable axle loads
to
improve economics.  Why should passenger trains not reap those benefits?

When comparing distributed traction with loco hauled, one argument says that
locos need more axle load to achieve the same traction as distributed axles,
but
there are fewer of the heavy axles so the overall track wear may be similar.

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