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 December 3rd, 2011, 06:53 PM   #141
trainrover
:-x
 
trainrover's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,787
Likes (Received): 738

Quote:
Originally Posted by Momo1435 View Post
The broader the gauge the bigger slacker the curves
...
tight curves



Quote:
Originally Posted by chornedsnorkack View Post
Because a narrow gauge and high constrained centre of gravity makes the trains easier to topple.




BTW, I'm more than convinced than ever that Canada's Province of Manitoba ought to ditch its highway expansions and go narrow gauge
__________________
.
hee hee
.

Last edited by trainrover; December 3rd, 2011 at 06:59 PM.
trainrover no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old December 3rd, 2011, 08:03 PM   #142
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,532
Likes (Received): 21239

Quote:
Originally Posted by Momo1435 View Post
You also remember that an broader and wider train is heavier
Wider gauge doesn't necessarily mean wider trains.

However, it does mean large curve radii.


Quote:
Originally Posted by trainrover View Post


BTW, I'm more than convinced than ever that Canada's Province of Manitoba ought to ditch its highway expansions and go narrow gauge
Not going to happen, as freight railways and the new Mantioba's highways serve different, and only a bit overlapping needs.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 4th, 2011, 12:30 AM   #143
trainrover
:-x
 
trainrover's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,787
Likes (Received): 738

I wasn't enquiring after (any one of) your forecast(s) ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by trainrover View Post
... frankly, I'd rather you not get cushy pegging onto quoting my insight
__________________
.
hee hee
.
trainrover no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 4th, 2011, 11:02 AM   #144
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,744
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by chornedsnorkack View Post
Because a narrow gauge and high centre of gravity makes the trains easier to topple.
Which for standard gauge, even at very high speeds, is a non issue...


Quote:
but why then 1435 mm? They were settling for a network incompatible with the existing 1067 mm anyway, and they were not going to connect with existing 1435 mm (Korea) anytime soon. They should have picked something broader to begin with, like 2134 mm.
Why not choose standard gauge? It makes it easier to export your technology, and going wider than standard gauge doesn't offer much of an advantage.
K_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 4th, 2011, 11:08 AM   #145
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,744
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
However, I wish they had built the European high-speed network in a special gauge (like 2000mm) so that, in the future, high-performing tilting trains could be used to surpass the speed limits constrained by curve radii.

It would be cool to have a train zipping from Paris to Berlin at 420km/h, for instance.
The current high speed lines already allow for speeds a lot higher than 300 kph, as the French have repeatedly demonstrated. You can run at 500 kph and above on standard gauge without much problems.
And using tilting trains to increase speed doesn't require broader gauge. A broader gauge would have had quite a few disadvantages. For example, curve radii would have to be even wider, and it would have been incompatible with the rest of the network. (But the way you think you'd probably consider that a plus...)

The main issue with speeds above 300kph is that aerodynamic drag starts to climb to the point that your train consumes so much energy that it isn't economical.
K_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 4th, 2011, 03:32 PM   #146
MarcVD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Brussels
Posts: 1,069
Likes (Received): 192

Quote:
Originally Posted by K_ View Post
The current high speed lines already allow for speeds a lot higher than 300 kph, as the French have repeatedly demonstrated. You can run at 500 kph and above on standard gauge without much problems.
More than 500 kph, yes. Without much problems, I don't think so.

First of all, such a speed record exercise requires months of preparation,
both on the rolling stock and on the infrastructure. It imposes so much
technical constraints that you could probably not afford to maintain them
for a daily service. You would need to re-measure the geometry of the track
every few days. The mechanical tension in the catenary is so high that wires
would have to be replaced every few months. Braking distances are so
long that only a few trains per hour would be allowed to follow each other
on the same track. With the current rolling stock, no tunnels allowed because
of too high pressure (it would break the windows). And the list goes on.
There is a very large difference between organizing such an event once, on
a track not yet used in commercial service, and having the same performance
done several times a day.

Second, there is a severe energy requirement issue, as aerodynamic drag
increases as the square of the speed. Above 350 km/h it simply becomes
un-economical. Not only in terms of energy consumed, but also in terms of
traction capacity to be mounted on the rolling stock. Remember that none
of those speed records have been achieved with standard trains, but always
with trains that were reduced in size, and/or over-powered (last SNCF
performance was achieved with a train with only 3 trailers instead of 8,
with additional powered boggies mounted under the trailers, and with voltage
of catenary raised from 25 to 27.5 kV).

And finally, one must remember that train services with no intermediate
stops are rarely operated in Europe, because they would not be profitable.
With several intermediate stops on the way, so high a cruising speed is
rarely interesting, because of the time it needs to reach it.

As I counter-example, I would like to mention, for example, the giant order
of ICx high-speed trains recently passed by the DB, which will have a top
speed of 250 km/h only... I think that frequency, punctuality, comfort, and
ease of travelling are more valued than speed by most European travellers.
MarcVD no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 5th, 2011, 07:42 AM   #147
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,532
Likes (Received): 21239

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcVD View Post
As I counter-example, I would like to mention, for example, the giant order of ICx high-speed trains recently passed by the DB, which will have a top speed of 250 km/h only... I think that frequency, punctuality, comfort, and ease of travelling are more valued than speed by most European travellers.
Costumers don't care much about maximum speed. From the customer viewpoint, what counts is travel time (especially when competition with rail is involved).

As for non-stop trains, I think new operators with a new philosophy could have success, linking only major cities with non-stop services with airplane-style rolling stock (like 30% more seats per car in 2+3 arrangements, limited staff (no restaurant car), and really low cost prices).
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 5th, 2011, 11:23 AM   #148
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,744
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcVD View Post
More than 500 kph, yes. Without much problems, I don't think so.
You have a point. However, it does demonstrate that the current gauge and route geometry allows for much higher speeds, which shows that Suburbanist's statement that a wider gauge would have allowed future speed increases is without base

Quote:
As I counter-example, I would like to mention, for example, the giant order
of ICx high-speed trains recently passed by the DB, which will have a top
speed of 250 km/h only... I think that frequency, punctuality, comfort, and
ease of travelling are more valued than speed by most European travellers.
Indeed. Having a fast "timetable" is more important than having fast trains, as for your customers it's "door to door" times that matter.
The main reason why DB is buying 249 kph trains however is to just stay below the TSI class 2 requirements, which saves them a lot of money...
K_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 5th, 2011, 11:39 AM   #149
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,744
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
As for non-stop trains, I think new operators with a new philosophy could have success, linking only major cities with non-stop services with airplane-style rolling stock (like 30% more seats per car in 2+3 arrangements, limited staff (no restaurant car), and really low cost prices).
I doubt such a train would be successful. People already hate having to spend 2 hours on a cramped plane. They're not going to like spending 4 hours in an equally cramped trains.
With medium distance plane travel you don't spend most of your time in the vehicle, so using sardine cans is (barely) acceptable. You spend more time at the airport, so it is there that you can do something to improve the experience.

With train travel you spend most of your time in the train (if the operator knows his trade) and maybe 10 minutes before, and 2 minutes afterwards in a station. So you need to make the train more agreeable, by providing more room, more amenities etc.

For a pure low cost no frills sardine can style high speed railway there is not going to be a large market. A train is so much bigger than a plane...
Ryanair flies planes that carry about 190 passengers per flight, and flies most of its routes just once a day. A single "high capacity" high speed trainset could carry up to 1600 passengers, if you were willing to go to the same seating density as a typical low cost carrier.
Now I doubt there would be many origin - destination pairs where you would be able to fill such a train.
Trains have the advantage that they can more easily serve multiple destinations, and they actually need to serve multiple destinations to be profitable. There are five daily TGVs from Brussels to the South of France. They all serve other destinations on route, and are well frequented. I doubt however you would be able to fill a train that only did Brussel - Marseille non stop even once a week...
K_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 5th, 2011, 12:18 PM   #150
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,974
Likes (Received): 388

Quote:
Originally Posted by K_ View Post
I doubt such a train would be successful. People already hate having to spend 2 hours on a cramped plane. They're not going to like spending 4 hours in an equally cramped trains.
Shinkansen does have wide loading gauge, but 5 abreast seats as standard. And some 6 abreast seating - which is cramped. No nonstop trains, but quite many limited stop express trains.
chornedsnorkack no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 5th, 2011, 02:20 PM   #151
k.k.jetcar
Registered User
 
k.k.jetcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Sapporo
Posts: 1,811
Likes (Received): 452

Quote:
Originally Posted by chornedsnorkack View Post
Shinkansen does have wide loading gauge, but 5 abreast seats as standard. And some 6 abreast seating - which is cramped. No nonstop trains, but quite many limited stop express trains.
The 6 abreast seating cars are the double deckers, which are used for the shorter runs, and for shinkansen commuters. The trainsets will be phased out as newer single level types are introduced. Five abreast are not bad, and you still get more seat pitch than an airliner, or even a TGV, which is comparatively cramped.
k.k.jetcar no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 5th, 2011, 02:33 PM   #152
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,744
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by chornedsnorkack View Post
Shinkansen does have wide loading gauge, but 5 abreast seats as standard. And some 6 abreast seating - which is cramped. No nonstop trains, but quite many limited stop express trains.
Japanese are smaller than Europeans though. I travel 1st class on the TGV because I'm to tall to sit comfortably in a second class TGV seat. I really wouldn't like them to decrease seat pitch even further. (Now, if they'd only install a foot rest that folds away completely...)
K_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 5th, 2011, 06:38 PM   #153
trainrover
:-x
 
trainrover's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,787
Likes (Received): 738

Quote:
Originally Posted by K_ View Post
Why not choose standard gauge?
Because not doing so would be detrimental to miles upon miles of seldom-visited Canadian wilderness
__________________
.
hee hee
.
trainrover no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 5th, 2011, 08:28 PM   #154
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,974
Likes (Received): 388

Quote:
Originally Posted by K_ View Post
Japanese are smaller than Europeans though. I travel 1st class on the TGV because I'm to tall to sit comfortably in a second class TGV seat. I really wouldn't like them to decrease seat pitch even further. (Now, if they'd only install a foot rest that folds away completely...)
TGV 2nd class seat pitch is 85...92 cm.

Airplane tourist class standard is 81 cm. You can find 79 and 76 cm - even on longhaul.
chornedsnorkack no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 6th, 2011, 02:04 AM   #155
Wilhem275
The Transporter
 
Wilhem275's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Genoa & Venice [I]
Posts: 2,733
Likes (Received): 767

Quote:
Originally Posted by K_ View Post
The main reason why DB is buying 249 kph trains however is to just stay below the TSI class 2 requirements, which saves them a lot of money...
True, and I think it's a smart policy.
__________________
I've sold monorails to Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrooke, and by gum, it put them on the map!
Well, sir, there's nothing on earth like a genuine, bona fide, electrified, six-car monorail!

Marchionne means never having to say you're sorry.

Due to Photobucket f*cking up, most images won't be visibile in my old posts. If you need anything specific, please write me.
Wilhem275 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 6th, 2011, 07:56 AM   #156
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,532
Likes (Received): 21239

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wilhem275 View Post
True, and I think it's a smart policy.
I disagree, they are dumbing down their railways for 20 years, likely making impractical for just a few trains running at full speed where they can, and making millions of travelers lose a handful of minutes over 2 decades - at least.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 6th, 2011, 07:59 AM   #157
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,744
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by trainrover View Post
Because not doing so would be detrimental to miles upon miles of seldom-visited Canadian wilderness
So if I understand you correctly choosing standard gauge would be detrimental to miles upon miles of seldom visited Canadian wilderness? I don't get where you're going with that...
K_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 6th, 2011, 08:04 AM   #158
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,744
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by chornedsnorkack View Post
TGV 2nd class seat pitch is 85...92 cm.

Airplane tourist class standard is 81 cm. You can find 79 and 76 cm - even on longhaul.
The seat pitch is higher in a TGV than a plane, however I have less trouble stowing my legs on a plane. The problem is the seat design. For some reason the SNCF feels a need to install a adjustable food rest that doesn't completely fold away, and thus always intrudes in to you leg space. It is also in any position usuless for a male of average north european length.

When Thalys started running in to the Netherlands with standard TGV-R sets they had quite a few complaints. This because the average French man is smaller than the average dutch _woman_, and so the train sets, designed to make a Frenchman comfortable, were seen as absolutely cramped for the dutch public...

The Dutch once started building their railways in broad gauge btw...
K_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 6th, 2011, 08:08 AM   #159
Wilhem275
The Transporter
 
Wilhem275's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Genoa & Venice [I]
Posts: 2,733
Likes (Received): 767

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
I disagree, they are dumbing down their railways for 20 years, likely making impractical for just a few trains running at full speed where they can, and making millions of travelers lose a handful of minutes over 2 decades - at least.
Remember higher speeds imply lower capacity... DB has made a choice, perfectly coherent with the decisions taken in the last decades about HS services.

The value of that (handful of minutes*passenger*travels) is not unlimited... and it might be < than [(lower tag price for slower train*number of trains)+(lower energy consumption*number of travels)+(network's higher residual capacity*value of other traffic using the network)].

"Speed at any cost" is not a brilliant policy... and I would not call 249 km/h "dumb"!
__________________
I've sold monorails to Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrooke, and by gum, it put them on the map!
Well, sir, there's nothing on earth like a genuine, bona fide, electrified, six-car monorail!

Marchionne means never having to say you're sorry.

Due to Photobucket f*cking up, most images won't be visibile in my old posts. If you need anything specific, please write me.
Wilhem275 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 6th, 2011, 08:13 AM   #160
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,532
Likes (Received): 21239

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wilhem275 View Post
Remember higher speeds imply lower capacity... DB has made a choice, perfectly coherent with the decisions taken in the last decades about HS services.

The value of that (handful of minutes*passenger*travels) is not unlimited... and it might be < than [(lower tag price for slower train*number of trains)+(lower energy consumption*number of travels)+(network's higher residual capacity*value of other traffic using the network)].

"Speed at any cost" is not a brilliant policy... and I would not call 249 km/h "dumb"!
Higher speeds don't reduce capacity with proper signaling (ERTMS-3). Indeed, the whole thing seems to be part of a larger plot to delay even further implementation of ERTMS in Germany.

Indeed, ERTMS is meant to avoid the effect of reduced capacity because of extremely high commercial speeds.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist 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