I agree the only reason to have two locomotives on both ends is to run at higher speed (110 mph). That makes sense for Illinois and Michigan, but no sense for Missouri.
Also from the
Trains article, the breakdown of cars ordered by Illinois (et all) is as follows:
- Cafe: 17
- Business/Coach: 17
- Coach: 54
So it appears as though the intention is to run 17 trainsets, each with 1 cafe, 1 business/coach car, and 3 coaches (with three spare coaches). If this is the case, somebody miscounted, since Illinois only has 33 charger locomotives, and 34 would be needed to put one on both ends of 17 consists.
Currently, Lincoln Service trains operate with two locomotives and 5 cars, so no change in capacity:
As for the debate between cab cars vs locos on both ends, I think there are problems with both. California will be really lucky if the Siemens cab cars turn out like the renders, because these would be the absolute best looking cab cars in the USA:
Usually cab cars are either utilitarian to the extreme, or just plain sad:
There is also the safety problems of having a lightweight car being pushed by a heavy locomotive. The potential for derailments, and the effects of those derailments, is significantly more than a locomotive-hauled train:
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...903-story.html
Even putting a locomotive on both ends of the train has this problem, though. Like the recent Talgo derailments in Washington. The derailment last July featured a train being pulled by a locomotive without a trailing locomotive, and the result was that the locomotive and the first cars derailed, but the rest stayed on the track:
Compare that to the recent Talgo crash in December, in which the lead locomotive derailed, but then the heavy trailing locomotive continued to push the lightweight Talgo cars off the bridge - the result being all the cars derailed and only the trailing locomotive remained on the tracks:
I'm beginning to think that the optimal inter-city arrangement of cars and locomotives is to have a bi-directional locomotive (or two locomotives coupled with their cabs facing out) always pulling the train, and then have the locomotive switch ends at each terminus. It takes more work, but it improves the ride quality and is safer in the case of a crash. And because it is safer, the equipment doesn't necessarily need to be built as much like tanks as equipment that is designed to be sandwiched between heavy locomotives.
Take this Talgo set, for instance:
It looks pretty slick, it operates well, and when it crashes the passengers remain safe, like the July Talgo derailment:
Or, better yet, compare this to what Amtrak already does on the Northeast Corridor, with bidirectional ACS-64 locomotives always pulling a string of cars:
And even when these crash, most of the cars at least stay intact; The Philadelphia crash of 2015 was also 50 mph over the speed limit on a curve, like the December Cascades derailment, but in this case some cars even remained on the track:
It's also worth noting the survival rate of the Philadelphia crash was 97% even though that crash was much more energetic, compared to the Cascades crash which was 96% survivable.
So perhaps it would be better if, instead of putting a charger on both ends, Amtrak would couple them B end to B end and run them around the train at the end of their routes. It would take more time at termini, but at least when accidents happen (and Amtrak has proven that it is certainly not
if but
when the next one will happen), the entire trainset won't be totaled, and fewer people will die.
Prev
Linear Mode
