Arnold Talgo passenger car compatibility

[nkalanaga]

NSEGeorge:  I tried that link.  It works, but...

"This page must be opened in Google Chrome Browser."

I've never seen a business site that is designed to only work with a single browser.  I've seen quite a few that WON'T work with certain browsers, but this is a new one.

[NSEGeorge]

Only Chrome????  That's Crazypants!

Here is the gist-  they are selling 6 cars that were derailed on the Seattle Portland run. Interestingly, they also have a bid sheet that includes two complete trainsets, so it is absolutely unclear what they are up to in Beech Grove. I have attached the pictures of what is for sale- looks like really good photos to help with modeling the train.

[NSEGeorge]

And the bid sheet if you care to purchase....

[nickelplate759]

the NTSB found safety issues with  all the Type 6 cars, so they are all being sold off.

[nkalanaga]

Those are good modeling pictures.  No, I don't think I'll bid on them.  I don't know what I'd do with one, much less a train, as we don't have enough flat ground to hold it.  I wonder if the NTSB would allow a railroad museum to operate them, at low speeds?

If I did have the room, a couple 20 ft containers would be nice.  We can use a new shed!

[ncbqguy]

Not saying that the brain trust that thought the Talgo would be a good idea to try in North America in spite of the long history of failed Talgo, Aerotrain, etc., etc. experiments, but Spain sure has used them with success for many decades.   Anybody know what defects the cars have that they had to be written off?
Charlie Vlk

[ZZone]

Sounds like largely crashworthiness according to this article: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/wsdot-to-replace-its-talgo-railcars-like-those-in-the-2017-amtrak-crash-near-dupont-as-soon-as-possible/
https://railfan.com/talgo-farewell-amtrak-cascades-trainsets-bound-for-scrapper/

[ncbqguy]

The CB&Q learned the hard way at Naperville that lightweight cars have to have proper collision posts and be able to withstand high compressive stresses to protect the occupants.   A legend was there was a Q rep at Budd supervising new cars being built there and he got into a disagreement with Budd over lesser standards.  Their management said their engineer was an M.I.T. grad and he said well I’m a S.H.I.T. Grad and I say it isn’t strong enough!   Budd complained to Q management about their uncouth employee and were told he was a Sam Houston Institute of Technology grad and they would require the higher standards!  They resisted the less well built MILW/ RI bilevels through the BN merger until the corporate memory grew dim.  The BN team promoting new commuter service really loved the Bombardier cars because of their fast unload/load design…but those killed passengers when an SUV was on the tracks and peeled the train open as if made of cardboard.
Stainless steel side trusses and collision posts trump carbon fiber skin any day in a wreck.
Charlie Vlk

[nkalanaga]

Many European passenger cars, at least into the 1990s, wouldn't pass FRA crash tests.  Part of the problem is the basic design.  North American cars have center sills, as the coupler takes all of the stresses, pulling and pushing. 

European cars have a center coupler for pulling, and side buffers for pushing.  In an impact, the buffers can't handle the forces, and the stronger object, usually a locomotive, splits the car in two.

US cars are required to survive rear- or head-on collisions with minimal penetration.  Than also makes them considerably heavier than a similar European car, but safer for the passengers.

[rail_nut]

European passenger cars are/were designed for a buff load of 400,000#. North American passenger cars 800,000# buff. ACELA 1,000,000# buff and additional crushable components on the ends. European passenger cars needed a waiver from the government to run on the normal rail system. Talgo was questionable from day one.   

[mopacaustin]

Not saying that the brain trust that thought the Talgo would be a good idea to try in North America in spite of the long history of failed Talgo, Aerotrain, etc., etc. experiments, but Spain sure has used them with success for many decades.   Anybody know what defects the cars have that they had to be written off?
Charlie Vlk

NTSB has Not Built Here disease and freaked out when they encountered Talgo bogies.

[rail_nut]

I don't think it was the bogies that were the problem. A car designed for 400,000# buff load running up against an 800,000# buff load car will lose every time.  I was told that the 800,000# buff load requirement started out as a way to protect postal workers in the RPOs and was carried over into all passenger cars.
Another point is that cars do not need a center sill to be designed to meet the 800,000# buff. Car design requirements are continually changing. Collision post strength at increasing heights and corner post design requirements have changed over time for better passenger/crew protection. I believe crash energy management being more recent starting with the ACELA.

[nkalanaga]

Rail_nut:  No, neither freight or passenger cars need a center sill.  ACF's Center Flows and today's well cars don't have them.  But they do need to be designed to take the stress of end-center impacts and transfer them through the structure in some fashion. 

[rail_nut]

nkalanaga,  Your earlier post mentioned the need for center sills. I noted that 800,000# buff passenger car designs exist without a center sill. Single level passenger cars with low level boarding step wells may have difficulty to transfer the buff load end to end without a center sill because of the short side sills. Now with crash energy management systems the end vestibules are quite useful in absorbing the crush leaving the passenger compartment intact.

[nkalanaga]

My mention of center sills was referring specifically to the European passenger cars, which had basically no end collision protection.  Without a center sill, or other means of handling the forces, an end-on collision could, and did, split the cars in two.

As you said, American cars without center sills were designed with other means of handling the stress, so didn't need the sills.  Crush management is a modern solution, very strong end sills and collision posts an older design, and both work well.

The big difference is that, with or without the center sill, American-style cars have the center-mounted draft gear designed to handle buffing forces.  Older European cars don't, as the coupler handles only the pulling force, so they were vulnerable to collisions that American cars could survive.