6 ms·

The trains in the u.s. are still pretty primitive. Do a google image search on amtrak for some cringeworthy pics. Where I live in Europe the only trains where

The trains in the u.s. are still pretty primitive. Do a google image search on amtrak for some cringeworthy pics. Where I live in Europe the only trains where the engine pulls are freight trains. All passenger trains except some cog-wheel trains in the mountains have diesel electric generators and individual motors on each wheel.

ams6110 12y ago
In the USA, freight is the vast majority of rail traffic, excepting a few highly populated corridors in the northeast and commuter lines in a handful of other urban areas.
tanzam75 12y ago
While Switzerland has opted to go all-EMU for its passenger trains, that's not true of every country. For example, the only powered axles on the French TGV are at the front and rear of the train. All the axles in-between are unpowered. The TGV isn't exactly a primitive train. The TGV was the basis of the Spanish AVE and the Korean KTX. The KTX also uses additional powered axles on the first and last cars, but it still has a lot more unpowered axles than powered ones. As for Amtrak, the Acela isn't a primitive train. It's a mashup of the French TGV and the Canadian LRC. And yes, it has unpowered axles in the middle. Its main problems are its excessive weight (forced by FRA regulations), and the totally inadequate investment in the track over the last 80 years. The basic design isn't that bad.
- iSnow 12y ago
  >The TGV was the basis of the Spanish AVE Well, the AVE 103 is based on the Velaro platform which most certainly has powered axles on every car, as you would expect from a German train. The same goes for the Russian Sapsan, the Chinese CRH3 and the German ICE3
  - tanzam75 12y ago
    The AVE 103 may be based on the Velaro, but the AVE 100, 102, and 112 are based on the TGV, which has non-powered passenger cars. The point is that non-powered passenger cars do not automatically indicate a "primitive" rail system, as the previous commenter seemed to think. Some countries have made one choice, other countries have made the other choice, and some countries even use both technologies simultaneously. And that's just high-speed trainsets. It's quite common to find non-powered passenger cars on conventional trains as well.
anigbrowl 12y ago
If you think propulsion is primitive, try braking. I was surprised to learn recently that braking is typically transmitted from car to car by compressed air, so that it can take up to 2 minutes for the braking instruction to reach the last car in the train. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_air_brake http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_air_brake Just as it's tricky for hte locotomotive to start the whole train at once, if the air braking system should fail, the momentum of the cars is likely to exceed the braking power of the engine: http://www.retronaut.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/317.jpg http://www.retronaut.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/317.jpg
- PhantomGremlin 12y ago
  You don't have to go back to ancient times to see the dangers of exceeding dynamic braking power. Here's a tragic relatively recent accident. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Bernardino_train_disaster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Bernardino_train_disaster
  - aianus 12y ago
    "As a result of this and other runaway incidents involving locomotives with dynamic braking, the Federal Railroad Administration reversed its mandate that dynamic braking be disabled when train brakes are placed in emergency. The mandate now is that they must all remain functional." What was the original rationale behind the emergency brakes disabling the dynamic braking?
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    I know, I just wanted an excuse to post the Montparnasse photograph again. There was actually an air-brake related derailment in Canada just last January on a train carrying crude oil, though luckily without major loss of life this time. I was surprised to learn that electronically-activated braking systems aren't the norm.

ams6110 12y ago

In the USA, freight is the vast majority of rail traffic, excepting a few highly populated corridors in the northeast and commuter lines in a handful of other urban areas.

tanzam75 12y ago

While Switzerland has opted to go all-EMU for its passenger trains, that's not true of every country. For example, the only powered axles on the French TGV are at the front and rear of the train. All the axles in-between are unpowered. The TGV isn't exactly a primitive train. The TGV was the basis of the Spanish AVE and the Korean KTX. The KTX also uses additional powered axles on the first and last cars, but it still has a lot more unpowered axles than powered ones. As for Amtrak, the Acela isn't a primitive train. It's a mashup of the French TGV and the Canadian LRC. And yes, it has unpowered axles in the middle. Its main problems are its excessive weight (forced by FRA regulations), and the totally inadequate investment in the track over the last 80 years. The basic design isn't that bad.

iSnow 12y ago
>The TGV was the basis of the Spanish AVE Well, the AVE 103 is based on the Velaro platform which most certainly has powered axles on every car, as you would expect from a German train. The same goes for the Russian Sapsan, the Chinese CRH3 and the German ICE3
- tanzam75 12y ago
  The AVE 103 may be based on the Velaro, but the AVE 100, 102, and 112 are based on the TGV, which has non-powered passenger cars. The point is that non-powered passenger cars do not automatically indicate a "primitive" rail system, as the previous commenter seemed to think. Some countries have made one choice, other countries have made the other choice, and some countries even use both technologies simultaneously. And that's just high-speed trainsets. It's quite common to find non-powered passenger cars on conventional trains as well.

anigbrowl 12y ago

If you think propulsion is primitive, try braking. I was surprised to learn recently that braking is typically transmitted from car to car by compressed air, so that it can take up to 2 minutes for the braking instruction to reach the last car in the train. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_air_brake http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_air_brake Just as it's tricky for hte locotomotive to start the whole train at once, if the air braking system should fail, the momentum of the cars is likely to exceed the braking power of the engine: http://www.retronaut.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/317.jpg http://www.retronaut.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/317.jpg

PhantomGremlin 12y ago
You don't have to go back to ancient times to see the dangers of exceeding dynamic braking power. Here's a tragic relatively recent accident. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Bernardino_train_disaster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Bernardino_train_disaster
- aianus 12y ago
  "As a result of this and other runaway incidents involving locomotives with dynamic braking, the Federal Railroad Administration reversed its mandate that dynamic braking be disabled when train brakes are placed in emergency. The mandate now is that they must all remain functional." What was the original rationale behind the emergency brakes disabling the dynamic braking?
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  I know, I just wanted an excuse to post the Montparnasse photograph again. There was actually an air-brake related derailment in Canada just last January on a train carrying crude oil, though luckily without major loss of life this time. I was surprised to learn that electronically-activated braking systems aren't the norm.