David Benton wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2024 5:01 am
Yes , easy to forget the "HSTs" are just Mk3 cars between 2 locomotives in a push pull configuration. Originally a real dumbing down of the over complicated APT trains , but , oh so successful.
This is a really good point. Like the post of the month.
Look at how many tres successful trains and planes were unplanned or even black sheep.
The 747 was supposed to be a stopgap until the SST came online, and they would all be converted to cargo. None of that happened and now the 747 is the "queen of the skies" for decades.
The F40 was supposed to be a stopgap and corridor engine while Amtrak figured out there next great engine after the SDP was dis-preferred. Turns out it rivals the E7 as a top passenger engine of all time.
The HST was supposed to be a cheap replacement for the APT using Mk3 cars and a higher speed set of engines that would last until the ECML and WCML had enough wires and electric motors. It turned out to be the best thing for passenger trains in Britain in a very long time.
Also see: Horizon/comets, amfleets, 66 class freight engines, gallery cars...
That leads me to a point. Sometimes simplicity and attainable goals are the best idea, not trying to shoot the moon. While the above three examples were excelling, how many experimental failures have we seen? Oodles.
The HST worked in part because the Mk3 was a great coach. Perhaps the next Acela or corridor stock should've been another set of Horizon cars with a set of bracketed engines that share the same profile. See, it looks fast!
The Arlanda express is a great example of this. My neighbors would thinks this is an Acela or TGV if you put the right decals on it. The average guy doesn't know the difference.
The new Acela: It's not Aveliable.