daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Railways

Railways (Inter)national commuter and freight trains



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old May 22nd, 2010, 01:04 PM   #61
Coccodrillo
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 7,200
Likes (Received): 767

It depends on the level of traffic exchanged with nearby countries, and on the network itself.

There are five main gauges in Europe. Of them, russian gauge network will probably never be converted to standard gauge because it is extensive and has a lot of traffic. Instead iberian gauge network is quite short and often with very few trains (most of lines with elss than 50 trains/day) so tehre a conversion is easy and necessary.
__________________
1.6.2016: Basistunnel!

für Güter die Bahn ~ pour vos marchandises le rail ~ chi dice merci dice ferrovia
Coccodrillo no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old May 25th, 2010, 05:41 PM   #62
homunwai
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 71
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by TWK90 View Post
In Malaysia, the focus is to electrify and double track existing metre gauge network with new alignment, to enable 160 km/h operation just as prophecus1 said...

Example of recent electrified double tracking project in Malaysia.



Hi,
Would you have specifications of this new malaysian train?
Eg, width, height, floor height(from top of rail), maximum speed, operational top speed, it is a tilting train, etc.
homunwai no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2010, 05:53 PM   #63
TWK90
Infrastructure
 
TWK90's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,798
Likes (Received): 3171

Quote:
Originally Posted by homunwai View Post
Hi,
Would you have specifications of this new malaysian train?
Eg, width, height, floor height(from top of rail), maximum speed, operational top speed, it is a tilting train, etc.
According to last year's Chinese language newspaper...

Maximum operation speed : 140 km/h
Maximum design speed : 160 km/h
Passenger capacity : 350
Length : 138 m (6 car train)
Weight : 231.8 tons
Carriage dimensions
Length : 22.95 m
Width : 2.75 m
Height : 4 m

This is not a tilting train.

Last edited by TWK90; May 25th, 2010 at 06:00 PM.
TWK90 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2010, 08:02 PM   #64
Augusto
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: PAR THR KL SIN
Posts: 393
Likes (Received): 47

Quote:
Originally Posted by homunwai View Post
Malaysia is a case in point. Hopefully, with double tracking and electrification of the metre gauge now, railway will be able to 'reclaim' its popularity while the longer term debate of HSR is being debated. In any case, as HSR will likely require dedicated tracks serving limited destinations, future HSR may coexist with modern metre guage.

Any comments/
Modern metre gauge would certainly coexist with HSR but probably not with an extended ERL network in the south: ERL (KL Sentral-KLIA) is actually the only standard gauge line in Malaysia (outside KL and its 2 LRT) and there are projects to extend it to Seremban, Melaka or even JB.
There is probably enough room for HSR and ERL or HSR and meter gauge but not for the three, excepted, may be, for the "Kommuter" part of the network between KL and Seremban.
Augusto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 26th, 2010, 12:07 AM   #65
prophecus1
Registered User
 
prophecus1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bremen, Kuala Lumpur
Posts: 314
Likes (Received): 159

Again the ETS of KTMB Malaysia. This train is undergoing test run. In this video, an engineer is seen announcing the speed of the train at 158, 159 and finally 160 km/h. I think this is the speed record of metre gauge in Malaysia, although far short of Australia's Queenway's rail at 210 km/h, but that train runs on cape gauge (1067 mm).

Note that there are speed limits at around 120 km/h due to the curves especially at Selangor part. At this part in this video (Sungkai - Tapah Road) the tracks are relatively straight.



Thanks to Kalvinkhew for this amazing video!
prophecus1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 26th, 2010, 02:06 PM   #66
homunwai
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 71
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by TWK90 View Post
According to last year's Chinese language newspaper...

Maximum operation speed : 140 km/h
Maximum design speed : 160 km/h
Passenger capacity : 350
Length : 138 m (6 car train)
Weight : 231.8 tons
Carriage dimensions
Length : 22.95 m
Width : 2.75 m
Height : 4 m

This is not a tilting train.
Thanks for the information.

Also, the video on metre gauge at 160km/h is just fantastic. However, we must be cautious that speed can only be achieved in tests and not in actual operattions.

The greatest impediment to meter gauge is stability in highspeed. I am wondering, if the following design approach will help to improve stability (and comfort) for metre gauge trains at high speed:

Width: cap at 2.75 m.

Height: Keep as long as possible to minimise G.G.. Japanese trains can be as long as 3.4m.

Floor height (from top of rail): Keep as long as possible to minimise G.G. Adopt a standard of 0.76m, which is the EU standard for platform height. Use smaller wheels, say 650mm diameter. Hang air con units under floor.

Bogie: Use Jacobs bogie to lower risk and impact of derailment.

Tilting: Avoid for simplicity and for the lack of under carriage space due to the low floor height mentioned above. if however tilting (eg 1 degree tilting) can be achieved within the contraints, use it.
homunwai no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 27th, 2010, 12:28 AM   #67
garegnanoman
Cittadino Mediolanense
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Certosa di Garegnano (Milano)
Posts: 35
Likes (Received): 1

Swiss metric-gauge trains:
http://www.rhb.ch/Video.1280.0.html
garegnanoman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 27th, 2010, 05:00 AM   #68
homunwai
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 71
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by homunwai View Post
Thanks for the information.

Also, the video on metre gauge at 160km/h is just fantastic. However, we must be cautious that speed can only be achieved in tests and not in actual operattions.

The greatest impediment to meter gauge is stability in highspeed. I am wondering, if the following design approach will help to improve stability (and comfort) for metre gauge trains at high speed:

Width: cap at 2.75 m.

Height: Keep as long as possible to minimise G.G.. Japanese trains can be as long as 3.4m.

Floor height (from top of rail): Keep as long as possible to minimise G.G. Adopt a standard of 0.76m, which is the EU standard for platform height. Use smaller wheels, say 650mm diameter. Hang air con units under floor.

Bogie: Use Jacobs bogie to lower risk and impact of derailment.

Tilting: Avoid for simplicity and for the lack of under carriage space due to the low floor height mentioned above. if however tilting (eg 1 degree tilting) can be achieved within the contraints, use it.

__
I noticed there are some typo errors in my earlier post. I have corrected them and added something below, eg, included the Talgo Technololgy:

The greatest impediment to meter gauge is stability in highspeed. I would propose the following design approach to improve stability (and comfort) for metre gauge trains at high speed:

Width: cap at 2.75m.

Floor height (from top of rail): Keep as low as possible to minimise G.G. Adopt a standard of 0.76m, which is the EU standard for platform height. Hang air con units under floor. Use smaller wheels, say 650mm diameter. But if the Talgo technology is used, wheel size will not be a constraint.

Height: Keep as low as possible to minimise G.G.. Japanese trains can be as long as 3.4m. With a floor height of 0.76m, the height of train can be kept to say 3.2m, i.e. with ample headroom in the carriage compartment.

Bogie: Use Talgo technology to allow low floor height and total flat floor. This will also improve stability, lower risk and impact of derailment. Tilting which comes with the Talgo technology will further improve stability and allow sustained high speed at banks.
homunwai no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 27th, 2010, 05:23 AM   #69
Aokromes
Patatero Inside
 
Aokromes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Siberia-Gasteiz
Posts: 8,018
Likes (Received): 2652

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coccodrillo View Post
With wooden sleepers the cost to reduce the gauge is not enormous (but if you have to wide the gauge, you have to change sleepers: the ones for metre gauge are too narrow for broad gauge).

Problems arise when curve radius are too small to handle wider gauge trains, and that traffic must be interrupted during the conversion, not only to change/modifiy tracks but also at the broders between gauges.

I don't have any idea of the cost, but in Europe a kilometre of new track costs around one million of EUR/USD (without guarantee, just to make an idea).
I can't say about standard speed, but each KM of Basque Y high speed line cost is from ~5 millon of EUR up to ~51 millon of EUR.

Also here 1 metre gauge lines are build on places with small or none space to be changed to UIC, also for example with only one ¿line?

[img]http://s4.******************/fondosycapturas/3990351img0088.jpg[/img]
[img]http://s4.******************/fondosycapturas/3990447img0095.jpg[/img]

Photos by ibon_81 at http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=332689
__________________
Si quieres compatibilidad con estandares y seguridad, ¿pq recomiendas Firefox y no Opera?
If you want compatibility with standards and security, ¿why do you recomend firefox and not Opera?

The only truly secure system is one that is powered off, cast in a block of concrete and sealed in a lead-lined room with armed guards - and even then I have my doubts. Gene Spafford.
I am Basque, not Russian, the "Siberia" thing is a joke.
Aokromes no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 28th, 2010, 10:54 PM   #70
trainrover
:-x
 
trainrover's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,787
Likes (Received): 738

fascinating pictures
trainrover no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 31st, 2010, 07:17 AM   #71
hammersklavier
Feral
 
hammersklavier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 597
Likes (Received): 423

Quote:
Originally Posted by trainrover View Post
I was talking about wilderness ("bush"), not rural areas. The flexibility you wish would be terminal, period.




It's no country; it's merely a federation, mate, with land claims a-brimming everywhere. The bush has been doing just fine at being isolated.....incursions will degrade the areas.....by the way, I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of the topography we're discussing be flood-plain turf...

Yet another! suburbanist gushing a 'great' idea...
However...Suburbanist does have a point that rubber-tired vehicles are more all-terrain (and thus better for more isolated wilderness areas) than meter-gauge railways. Building a meter-gauge railway is going to be more expensive than building a gravel road, because with the RR you have to lay ties and rails whereas with just the road you lay down the gravel layer and be done with it. Thus meter-gauge lines find their greatest advantages in terrain where tired vehicle access is most difficult, like mountain logging and mining operations, say.

By the way, as to the theme of this thread: I think there will be significantly fewer "gauges" a century from now than there are today. To wit: many broader-gauge networks will be converted to standard gauge as standard gauge railheads expand out of their traditional territories (read: Europe, North America, China) while the narrower gauges will slowly converge on a unified gauge based most likely in the insular gauge. This convergence will be based on a number of factors, including the desire for inter-operability (the main reason why Spain has a long-term goal of converting their Iberian gauge operations into standard gauge) as well as manufacturers' desires: it's much more expensive to maintain something like half-a-dozen molds for gauges within a few dozen millimeters of each other than it is for just one or perhaps two, and since these molds would wind up being in insular gauge, for the obvious reason that Japan and Taiwan and other insular-gauged lines would be the primary customers of narrow-gauged services as a whole this would drive a retrofit of other narrow-gauged lines around the world in order to accept equipment manufactured in these two places.

I'm not too sure how successful India's long-term efforts to convert everything into that broad gauge will be, though. Gauge standardization has the key advantage of a reduction in travel time as you don't need to offload and and reload everything at every border, so an aberrant gauge costs time, and to a standard operator this means dollar signs for a competing service.
hammersklavier no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 31st, 2010, 12:08 PM   #72
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,974
Likes (Received): 388

Quote:
Originally Posted by hammersklavier View Post
However...Suburbanist does have a point that rubber-tired vehicles are more all-terrain (and thus better for more isolated wilderness areas) than meter-gauge railways. Building a meter-gauge railway is going to be more expensive than building a gravel road, because with the RR you have to lay ties and rails whereas with just the road you lay down the gravel layer and be done with it. Thus meter-gauge lines find their greatest advantages in terrain where tired vehicle access is most difficult, like mountain logging and mining operations, say.
But the very flexibility of tired vehicles is a major item of cost. A gravel road is little use unless it is wide enough to allow for two trucks passing wherever they happen to meet. Whereas a narrow gauge railway running on schedule can be single track except for passing places - the gravel bed can be much narrower.

Plus a tired vehicle has much higher rolling friction than a steel wheel on steel rail.
chornedsnorkack no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 31st, 2010, 05:50 PM   #73
Billyking
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 35
Likes (Received): 0

By the way, as to the theme of this thread: I think there will be significantly fewer "gauges" a century from now than there are today. To wit: many broader-gauge networks will be converted to standard gauge as standard gauge railheads expand out of their traditional territories (read: Europe, North America, China) while the narrower gauges will slowly converge on a unified gauge based most likely in the insular gauge. This convergence will be based on a number of factors, including the desire for inter-operability (the main reason why Spain has a long-term goal of converting their Iberian gauge operations into standard gauge) as well as manufacturers' desires: it's much more expensive to maintain something like half-a-dozen molds for gauges within a few dozen millimeters of each other than it is for just one or perhaps two, and since these molds would wind up being in insular gauge, for the obvious reason that Japan and Taiwan and other insular-gauged lines would be the primary customers of narrow-gauged services as a whole this would drive a retrofit of other narrow-gauged lines around the world in order to accept equipment manufactured in these two places.

I'm not too sure how successful India's long-term efforts to convert everything into that broad gauge will be, though. Gauge standardization has the key advantage of a reduction in travel time as you don't need to offload and and reload everything at every border, so an aberrant gauge costs time, and to a standard operator this means dollar signs for a competing service.[/QUOTE]

What would the gauges that will survive?
- Standard? For sure.
- Cape gauge (1067mm)? Large application in Japan, Taiwan, SA, NZ, Queensland. So, will survive?
- Meter gauge????????
Billyking no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 31st, 2010, 06:18 PM   #74
Coccodrillo
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 7,200
Likes (Received): 767

Quote:
Originally Posted by Billyking View Post
What would the gauges that will survive?
1676 - 5ft6in in India (not in Spain)
1600 - 5ft3in South America (and maybe Ireland, Australia will convert its lines)
1524 - 5ft in Russia and nearby countries
1435 - 4 ft 8,5 in everywhere
1067 - 3ft6in Southern part of Africa, Japan, Taiwan
1000 - 3 ft 3+3/8 in everywhere

And non-standard gauges in metro lines (900-950-1200-1372-1495-1588-...).
__________________
1.6.2016: Basistunnel!

für Güter die Bahn ~ pour vos marchandises le rail ~ chi dice merci dice ferrovia
Coccodrillo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 31st, 2010, 07:24 PM   #75
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,974
Likes (Received): 388

Quote:
Originally Posted by hammersklavier View Post
By the way, as to the theme of this thread: I think there will be significantly fewer "gauges" a century from now than there are today. To wit: many broader-gauge networks will be converted to standard gauge as standard gauge railheads expand out of their traditional territories (read: Europe, North America, China)
The entire 1524 mm network is a single, continuous network of about 220 000 km (the old 1524 mm networks of southern USA and Panama have been regauged). By contrast, the 1435 mm network is split into 3 big unconnected part (Europe, North America, China+Korea) and several smaller. For a country at the border between 1520 mm and 1435 mm, is there a real incentive to take the cost of regauging just to lose the existing connections on the 1520 mm side?

Analogically the 1676 mm network of India, Bangladesh and Pakistan is almost 70 000 km. And rapidly expanding through regauging 1000 mm in India. There is only one 1435 mm railhead in Zahedan. Why would Pakistan bother regauging?


Quote:
Originally Posted by hammersklavier View Post
while the narrower gauges will slowly converge on a unified gauge based most likely in the insular gauge. This convergence will be based on a number of factors, including the desire for inter-operability (the main reason why Spain has a long-term goal of converting their Iberian gauge operations into standard gauge) as well as manufacturers' desires: it's much more expensive to maintain something like half-a-dozen molds for gauges within a few dozen millimeters of each other than it is for just one or perhaps two, and since these molds would wind up being in insular gauge, for the obvious reason that Japan and Taiwan and other insular-gauged lines would be the primary customers of narrow-gauged services as a whole this would drive a retrofit of other narrow-gauged lines around the world in order to accept equipment manufactured in these two places.
There is 112 000 km 1067 mm railways and 95 000 km 1000 mm railways. What would drive regauging?

There are several small 1000 mm networks in Africa, next to 1067 mm neighbours, so there regauging to 1067 mm makes sense. But there are also big networks of 1000 mm in Southeast Asia (no connection of 1000 mm between Myanmar and India or Bangladesh, so not affected by Unigauge). There is a neighbouring 1067 mm network in Indonesia, but at the moment no rail bridge over Malacca strait, nor indeed rail across the isle of Sumatra, so what would drive regauge to 1067 mm there? And there is also a big metre gauge network through Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Bolivia. No adjoining 1067 mm network, so nothing to drive regauge to 1067 mm.
chornedsnorkack no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 31st, 2010, 07:43 PM   #76
Coccodrillo
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 7,200
Likes (Received): 767

Quote:
Originally Posted by chornedsnorkack View Post
For a country at the border between 1520 mm and 1435 mm, is there a real incentive to take the cost of regauging just to lose the existing connections on the 1520 mm side?
The 1524 mm gauge network unfortunately lies between two standard gauge networks. If it wasn't for that, there was a signle 500.000 (or maybe more) km network
__________________
1.6.2016: Basistunnel!

für Güter die Bahn ~ pour vos marchandises le rail ~ chi dice merci dice ferrovia
Coccodrillo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 31st, 2010, 09:39 PM   #77
homunwai
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 71
Likes (Received): 1

Why did India choose regauging to 1676mm instead of standard gauge?
homunwai no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 31st, 2010, 09:41 PM   #78
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,974
Likes (Received): 388

Quote:
Originally Posted by homunwai View Post
Why did India choose regauging to 1676mm instead of standard gauge?
Because India does not have 1435 mm gauge.
chornedsnorkack no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 1st, 2010, 09:52 PM   #79
trainrover
:-x
 
trainrover's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,787
Likes (Received): 738

Quote:
Originally Posted by hammersklavier View Post
rubber-tired vehicles are more all-terrain (and thus better for more isolated wilderness areas)
It's clear that my own "better" be too remote a concept for you too
trainrover no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 2nd, 2010, 12:02 AM   #80
TsLeng
Registered User
 
TsLeng's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 44
Likes (Received): 0

Cool video of the ETS :-)

Need to have a ride on it one day.
TsLeng no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 10:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium