Will the LIRR ever use tilting trains?

I came across a video online of German Ice trains that have the ability to tilt on curves, allowing trains to travel 30% faster on curves. Do you think the LIRR will ever take advantage of this technology, or is it just wishful thinking on my part?



I put up a clip of the train in action, over at youtube:

Video of the train in action

More info on Tilting trains shown in the video

wishful thinking. tilting is for high speed rail, not commuter rail. you don't tilt to raise the speed limit from 60 to 75, but from 100 to 135.

Idont know too much about it, but I know that when Amtrak tested the x2000 (which also tilted) it had a tendency to chew up and damage the rail. I believe the Acela also tilts, and if you recall Amtrak had to take all of them out of service due to cracks in brake riggings. The were very close to a catastrophic failure. Also in august 2002 the fleet was shut down due to the discovery of a crack in a bracket that anchors a yaw damper, a device designed to prevent locomotive wheels from "hunting", or moving side-to-side. they found the problem in an Acela power car undergoing routine inspection, which led Amtrak to order reduced speed on the trains on August 12, while setting out to inspect other Acela power cars. Amtrak has had a lot of problems with the design.
The acela also tends to "chew up the rails" Just type Acela in any search engine and you can read about the problems. also for information about the same problems the ice train has as the ones amtrak experienced, go to http://home.istar.ca/~axelh/news/401-884.html and read about the ice train accident. to date, over 120 people died in this accident caused by the same type of brake rigging problem that amtrak experienced. None for me thanks

have the other high speed rail systems had similar problems? I know there is the TGV in France, and the bullet trains and the such over in Japan. I know that for a while the bullets were running with an excellent safety record from what I've heard.

RPM2Night wrote:have the other high speed rail systems had similar problems? I know there is the TGV in France, and the bullet trains and the such over in Japan. I know that for a while the bullets were running with an excellent safety record from what I've heard.

TGV non-terrorist accidents are normally just due to the pure speed. the situation is the same as many american accidents, but the speed mutliplies the damage exponentially.

those systems don't tilt (i believe) and have mostly straight tracks. tilting trains are used when old track with many curves not able to comfortable sustain high speeds, and a tilting train replaces the tilt in tracks used for high speed rail. obviously, there are problems

Ok that makes sense. I'd imagine also that the trains going fast around curves, although not felt inside the train, push hard on the outer rail of the curve. Do they lay extra spikes or other special measures on the outer rail to prevent it from being pushed outward?

Are there any commuter rails using these types of trains currently? Or is it just high speeds trains?

The TGV, the French build a brand new ROW (JUST FOR) the TGV wide curves and long straights. LOADS OF FREIGHT and High speed trains only.
That can never happen in the USA way too much opposition to building a branch on a short haul commuter line, imagine building a 200+MPH row between Boston and Miami? All property that will need to be taken by eminent domain and what not. Out system of government would never allow.

The Train in Japan has had 1 or so fatalities or so I hard on a TV program on the Hist. channel.

As for the Tilting Technology It was in service in Brittan I believe in the 70s there was a test train set but the program never materialized. Much like the turbo M1s were to the LIRR. That first British tilt train is privately owned by the guy that owns the Scotsman. The Virgin trains that they use now all have that tilt function and have something that will never see on the LIRR again, bar car service. Drinks snacks and newspapers as well as satellite net. The satellite net I’m unsure about . The Virgin trains operate on turns like on the Port Jeff branch at speeds upwards of 200-250MPH+ (the wider the faster still applies. )

LIRR trains are limited by the volume of movements and corresponding signal blocking. Tilt trains, as said previously, are intended for older inter-city routes.

I believe some Germans 'regional' lines use tilt stock, but not as a rule.

There'd be a theroetical advantage to tilt on the Port Jeff and Oyster Bay lines, and the far end of Port Washington, but the close spaceing limits it, FRA regulations make a workable tilt train impossible, and in such service you'd need a very good HP:weight ratio anyway. I doubt you'd realistically shave more than a few minutes.

Of course, if the LIRR's existing fleet wasn't so overweight, they could run higher unbalance - the FRA's 3 inches is basically a comfort standard, even regular Amfleets have run 6 in service, but that's at the limit of practicality. The trick is a light axle load (the M-1's would be the limit for a tilt train of any real use), which gets your forces down enough to run high unbalance safely. No big secret - plenty of transit systems do it, even in the US.

Curve speeds are pretty sluggish on the LIRR, at least from casual observation. Try watching out the front of a New Haven line train some day...

Nasadowsk wrote:I believe some Germans 'regional' lines use tilt stock, but not as a rule.

There'd be a theroetical advantage to tilt on the Port Jeff and Oyster Bay lines, and the far end of Port Washington, but the close spaceing limits it, FRA regulations make a workable tilt train impossible, and in such service you'd need a very good HP:weight ratio anyway. I doubt you'd realistically shave more than a few minutes.

Of course, if the LIRR's existing fleet wasn't so overweight, they could run higher unbalance - the FRA's 3 inches is basically a comfort standard, even regular Amfleets have run 6 in service, but that's at the limit of practicality. The trick is a light axle load (the M-1's would be the limit for a tilt train of any real use), which gets your forces down enough to run high unbalance safely. No big secret - plenty of transit systems do it, even in the US.

Curve speeds are pretty sluggish on the LIRR, at least from casual observation. Try watching out the front of a New Haven line train some day...

you forgot the number one problem:
funding

let's stop dreaming, because tilting trains are not for commuter rail. unless the population of port jefferson raises to above 100,000, theres no reason to even consider it.

What is meant by an "unbalance"? VIA rail in Canada ran tilt trains (LRC trains) from about 1980 to about 1999. They were not high speed like the TGV or Bullet Train, but comparable to Amtrak with 100mph max. As Nasadowsk said, most of the LIRR is straight, and tilt technology would be of little benefit.

<i>you forgot the number one problem:
funding</i>

Hardly number 1. Actually, quite far down the list:

1) It's not going to provide a useful speed increase, given the bulk of the LIRR is straight line trackage.

2) Maintenance.

3) FRA regulations make a worthwhile tilt train impossible. Witness Acela, with curve speeds lower than the non-tilting TGV...

4) Even if it could be done and did have an advantage:

<i>let's stop dreaming, because tilting trains are not for commuter rail. unless the population of port jefferson raises to above 100,000, theres no reason to even consider it.</i>

Refusing to think outside the box would make it a non starter on the LIRR.

5) Even if 1 through 4 didn't exist, plenty of people would say "it won't work" and kill the idea, despite evidence that tilt trains can do amazing things for schedules, and have elsewhere for years now.

It could have marginal advantages on the New Haven line, but even there, the time savings wouldn't be huge, due to the frequent drawbridges which restrict speeds. Straightlinning through bridgeport, maybe tunneling a few bridges, could have numerous advantages, but the costs would be astronomical...

A better time killer would be to go with high performance equipment (i.e. 25hp or more per ton), high acceleration (i.e. 3.0mph/s to a decent speed) could easily chop schedules. With tight station spacing and an 80mph top speed, BART achives a better average speed (IIRC, 40+mph locals, 45+mph expresses, where local station spacing is sub 2 miles) with lower power consumption to boot (far less than an M-7 could do even with regen which doesn't exist now anyway). Dropping BART's average into the Port Washington line (which is a close fit spacingwise to BART) yields a trip of around 1/2 an hour or less. With tight operations, you could approach that without the automation (which IMHO hasn't proven remarkably useful anyway). So, assume 20mile line, 40mph average, that's 1/2 an hour, with faster expresses.

Gee, ya think shaving 15 min off the current PW line schedule would attract riders? Go re-read 3 through 5. It's not money holding the LIRR back.

Nasadowsk wrote:<i>you forgot the number one problem:
funding</i>

Hardly number 1. Actually, quite far down the list:

1) It's not going to provide a useful speed increase, given the bulk of the LIRR is straight line trackage.

2) Maintenance.

3) FRA regulations make a worthwhile tilt train impossible. Witness Acela, with curve speeds lower than the non-tilting TGV...

4) Even if it could be done and did have an advantage:

<i>let's stop dreaming, because tilting trains are not for commuter rail. unless the population of port jefferson raises to above 100,000, theres no reason to even consider it.</i>

Refusing to think outside the box would make it a non starter on the LIRR.

5) Even if 1 through 4 didn't exist, plenty of people would say "it won't work" and kill the idea, despite evidence that tilt trains can do amazing things for schedules, and have elsewhere for years now.

It could have marginal advantages on the New Haven line, but even there, the time savings wouldn't be huge, due to the frequent drawbridges which restrict speeds. Straightlinning through bridgeport, maybe tunneling a few bridges, could have numerous advantages, but the costs would be astronomical...

A better time killer would be to go with high performance equipment (i.e. 25hp or more per ton), high acceleration (i.e. 3.0mph/s to a decent speed) could easily chop schedules. With tight station spacing and an 80mph top speed, BART achives a better average speed (IIRC, 40+mph locals, 45+mph expresses, where local station spacing is sub 2 miles) with lower power consumption to boot (far less than an M-7 could do even with regen which doesn't exist now anyway). Dropping BART's average into the Port Washington line (which is a close fit spacingwise to BART) yields a trip of around 1/2 an hour or less. With tight operations, you could approach that without the automation (which IMHO hasn't proven remarkably useful anyway). So, assume 20mile line, 40mph average, that's 1/2 an hour, with faster expresses.

Gee, ya think shaving 15 min off the current PW line schedule would attract riders? Go re-read 3 through 5. It's not money holding the LIRR back.

15 minutes of the PW schedule? i think thats a little too ambitious, and would only work for expresses, which there wouldn't be enough of to justify the project.

i do agree that there are other much more effective things that can be done, and FUNDED. i don't mean they can't fund tilting trains, but they won't. there are better places for that kind of money than on tilting trains.

now, would I like to see a LRC trainset on the Port Jefferson? YES

will it be funded when: new rolling stock was just purchased, when there are other ways to raise speed, and other projects that need money?

NO!!!!

I'm not talking tilt trains. I'm talking about equipment that meets modern performance levels, not early 1950's levels the current fleet achives. BART has shown that you can achive high average speeds even with tight station spaceing, low top speeds, and curves. And I'm picking the PW line because it closely models BART's conditions - close stations, few restrictive curves (except at the end), only one grade crossing, long high speed runs. As a simple back of the envelope calculation - the PW line is aprox. 20 miles, BART's average speed is approximately 40mph in local service. Back of the envelope, that's 1/2 hour trip time.

That's with a 600HP (continuous rating) MU, or 21HP per ton. That's better than the M1 (12ish) or M7 (which was supposed to be 17ish, but can't achive it. I'll pin it at close to the M-1's). By having such high HP (though more recent EMUs overseas are even higher), the train can not only get out of the station fast, but get up to a decent speed faster, too. Not to mention clear restrictions faster. Getting up to speed is key here.

Practically:

* Upgrade Woodside to Main Street for 80mph, regrade the sluggish 40mph curve out of Woodside to allow a bit more.

* Fix Shea to allow for 80, though practically you'd be slowing here for Main Street and the curve toward Murry Hill.

* Regrade all the other curves on the line to incrementally raise the speed.

* Fix Port Washington to get rid of the sluggish crawl in/out.

* Beats sense into the dispatcher, or the computer that replaced him, so we're not waiting at Great Neck so much.

* Purchase equipment that achives modern performance levels.

* Look long and hard at the signalling system. This can apply systemwide. I know the LIRR's been looking at CBTC, I personally don't think it's the best way to go. I'd be looking at what works elsewhere (noteably LZB, or a variant of TVM whatever-it-is-this-week, or some of US&S, etc's more recent offerings.

Notice the lack of any tilting here - it's not required. What *is* required is equipment that performs to modern levels, something the LIRR blew with the M-7s, they're far too slow to meet the demands of 15 years from now. They can barely meet today's demands.

Higher average speeds:

* Attract riders
* Save money
* Give the taxpayer better bang:buck

To get this, you need trains that can accelerate fast, and to get rid of the slow points in the system. With an existing fleet that's slow, and the comming transportation crissis on LI, the LIRR's in a very poor position attract riders.

Guess where the money's gonna go instead...