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 6th, 2011, 08:15 AM   #161
Wilhem275
The Transporter
 
Wilhem275's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Genoa & Venice [I]
Posts: 2,733
Likes (Received): 767

Ok. Assuming this is true, those systems still don't come for free
__________________
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

Sponsored Links
Old December 6th, 2011, 10:09 AM   #162
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,744
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
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.
DB already has a "proper signalling system" that allows high capacities at high (and low) speeds: LZB. This is not a ploy to delay the implementation of ETCS. In fact. I can understand the Germans here...
K_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 6th, 2011, 10:11 AM   #163
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,744
Likes (Received): 243

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.
The way Germany runs it railways means that average "door to door" speeds are higher in Germany than in France (or for that matter, Italy...)
Explain to me how this makes millions of travelers lose minutes...
K_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 6th, 2011, 10:18 AM   #164
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,744
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wilhem275 View Post
The value of that (handful of minutes*passenger*travels) is not unlimited...
And minutes spend in a train are not the same as minutes spend in a station...

A train from A to B every hour that takes 3 hours has a higher value to passengers than a two trains a day that take 2 1/2 hours... And you need to consider the speed of the whole system, not just single lines. In France train travel often becomes rather slow and inconvenient as soon as you're not going to or from Paris. In Italy you lose a lot of time as soon as a change of trains is involved... In Spain they don't even offer you tickets for trips involving a change, which lowers the value of your system even more.
K_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 6th, 2011, 10:49 AM   #165
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 K_ View Post
The way Germany runs it railways means that average "door to door" speeds are higher in Germany than in France (or for that matter, Italy...)
Explain to me how this makes millions of travelers lose minutes...
It doesn't matter how the situation is in France or Italy.

It matters that travelers are being shortchanged in couple minutes for trip because they don't want to order more expensive trains! In a country whose population can afford higher fares anyway.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 6th, 2011, 02:20 PM   #166
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,744
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
It matters that travelers are being shortchanged in couple minutes for trip because they don't want to order more expensive trains! In a country whose population can afford higher fares anyway.
Those 249 kph ICx trains DB is ordering are intended for services where at the moment the maximum speed is usually 200kph... For speeds above 249 kph DB is buying Velaro sets. Buying 300 kph trainsets for these services would mean DB would have to charge more, without being able to offer faster services.

Basically what DB is doing is refusing to neglect it's conventional IC network. Something that is quite different from France or Italy...
K_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 28th, 2012, 05:01 AM   #167
nagara373
Registered User
 
nagara373's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Nagoya
Posts: 71
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sopomon View Post
Why would a broader gauge be necessary for the trains to tilt?
Longer curve radii, not tilt.

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

Japan made a stupid move in picking 1435 mm for Shinkansen. They did correctly recognize that narrow 1067 mm gauge has poor stability for high speeds and wide loading gauge - see the problems of Queensland with high speed 1067 mm - 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.
Japanese Shinkansen network should connect with China and South Korea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Momo1435 View Post
The broader the gauge the bigger the curves. For a line that is dead straight broader is better. In the case of the Tokaido Shinkansen you still see some tight curves that would cause even more problems with a high speed then they do now if the line was super broad gauge.

You also remember that an broader and wider train is heavier, an the weight is also a limiting factor in it's performance. Back in 1964 when the Shinkansen started operations the technology wasn't as advanced as it is now. Going even broader then the 1435mm might have caused to much problems back then. Right now it could be different, the 16 car 700n series set is 270 tons lighter then an original 16 car 0 series set. But since the line is already 1435 it wouldn't make sense to widen it.

Going faster on conventional track is also a challenge no matter what the track gauge is. All the problems in China with extreme high speed in regular service show that it might simply not be economical and practical to go faster then about 350 km/h with steel on steel.

And tilting trains won't change that, you see that the N700 now can reach 270 km/h on the parts of the Tokaido Shinkansen that previously only had a max speed of 255 km/h but it doesn't make it go faster at it's top speed on the parts of the line where it can reach it's max speed of 300 km/h. It's also not that strange that the N700-7000 that only runs on the newer Sanyo and Kyushu Shinkansen lines don't have the tilting system, simply because these lines are much more straight therefor it's not needed anymore.

Another thing is that the tilting on the N700 is still just a semi-active suspension system, it doesn't have active tilting like a Pendolino. Something that according to the railway industry is also not possible. The reason is that high speed trains need very stiff bogies for the stability of the trains at high speeds. While the bogies of tilting trains have to be more flexible to bend a bit in the tight curves. The Swiss railways wanted to buy this kind of trains with a max speed of 300 km/h and active tilt but the manufactures simply said it wasn't possible.


The best way to go faster then the current high speed trains is Maglev.
Maglevs have a lot of disadvantages. Very expensive, incompatible, and small capacity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
Wider gauge doesn't necessarily mean wider trains.

However, it does mean large curve radii.




Not going to happen, as freight railways and the new Mantioba's highways serve different, and only a bit overlapping needs.
Wider track gauge needs both larger structure gauge (e.g. larger tunnels, bridges, etc.) and longer curve radii.

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.
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.
Maglevs also have incompatible with the rest of the network. If the train speeds are low, curve radii depend on track gauges. If the train speeds are high, curve radii depend on train speeds.
__________________
1676mm for Afghanistan, 1435mm for Iceland.

Last edited by nagara373; January 29th, 2012 at 04:47 AM. Reason: spell
nagara373 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 28th, 2012, 01:35 PM   #168
nagara373
Registered User
 
nagara373's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Nagoya
Posts: 71
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by K_ View Post
Why is this "necessary"? This is a crazy idea.



It's not the gauge that determines success. There are quite a few very successful narrow gauge network. Have a look in Japan...
Most of the narrow gauge rail networks are eventually killed by cars (road traffic), but suburban narrow gauge networks are successful.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
I don't see a point of converting freight railways in US to broad gauge.

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.
Rail networks in USA and Canada should be converted from 1435mm to 1676mm and enlarging loading gauge and stretching some routes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Think View Post
Spain has made the opposite than you proposed, conventional rail has 1.668 mm and high speed rail has 1.435 mm. This is due to conect high speed rail with french network.

I'm not sure that a really big gauge is a real adventage. We should look for any study or something who talk about that. From metric gauge to ~1.5 meters gauge the difference is there, but I have my doubts in higher gauges. The lateral aceleration over the flange reduces in a geometric progresion, and you're getting maximum speeds that are limited by other systems and no by the wheel-rail interaction.

Also, the train's gravity center could be situated still nearer the track and active suspension isn't used in high speed yet to reach speeds that we still don't know in high speed current gauges.
Most of the high-speed trainsets have smaller (narrower and lower) loading gauges.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stingstingsting View Post
2134mm sounds preposterous.

And anyhow, the Tokaido Shinkansen is in itself quite circuitous for a high speed rail line. Imagine how much more right-of-way would need to be purchased just for your suggestion? Correct me if I am wrong but standard gauge was chosen so that they could fit the 2by3 seating arrangement that would quite greatly increase the capacity of train sets.

Also, don't forget that the loading gauge is equally, if not more, important, whcih is why shinkansen trains are wider than most other high speed trains.

Gauge does not have as much to with speed as we assume.
French TGVs have less seat pitches than Shinkansen.

Proposal for USA and Canada:
*Track gauge: 1676mm (5ft6in)
*Electrification: 25kV 60Hz AC overhead lines (25kV 50Hz AC overhead lines for west of Fairbanks)
*Loading gauge: 3660mm wide and 6150mm high (5300mm high for passenger)
*Platform height: 200mm above rail
*Sleeper type: Concrete
*Minimum platform length: 914m
*Optimum platform length: 1067m or longer

Proposal for Spain:
*Track gauge: 1435mm (4ft8.5in)
*Platform height: 760mm or higher
*Sleeper type: Concrete
__________________
1676mm for Afghanistan, 1435mm for Iceland.

Last edited by nagara373; January 29th, 2012 at 04:52 AM. Reason: spell
nagara373 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 28th, 2012, 01:50 PM   #169
loefet
Registered User
 
loefet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Göteborg
Posts: 525
Likes (Received): 233

Quote:
Originally Posted by nagara373 View Post
Maclevs have a lot of disadvantages. Very ezpensive, incompatible, and small capacity.
Incompatible to standard rail is true, but somehow it would still work, look at Japan. Standard rail network and Shinkansen Network don't match, they are completely separated.

Expensive, yes, but not more than any other high speed line. Maglev also have a less financial risk of going over budget due to you have a better system that could allow you to go around/over problems instead of through them. And with the benefit of lower maintenance costs of the system compared to normal rail then you it will only save you money in the long run.

Small capacity?? Don't think so, among us who are pro Maglev here in Sweden are sure that a single track line with meeting stations between Stockholm and Gothenburg easily can replace the Intercity, Air and some of the car/bus passengers with it's capacity.
loefet no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 28th, 2012, 10:23 PM   #170
trainrover
:-x
 
trainrover's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,787
Likes (Received): 738

Must the following be the gauge of maglev you have in mind?


mute!
__________________
.
hee hee
.
trainrover no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 29th, 2012, 04:28 AM   #171
nagara373
Registered User
 
nagara373's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Nagoya
Posts: 71
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by trainrover View Post
Must the following be the gauge of maglev you have in mind?
Track system
Track gauge (conventional rail)
Loading gauge
Structure gauge
Curve radii
__________________
1676mm for Afghanistan, 1435mm for Iceland.
nagara373 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 31st, 2012, 02:14 PM   #172
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,744
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by loefet View Post
Incompatible to standard rail is true, but somehow it would still work, look at Japan. Standard rail network and Shinkansen Network don't match, they are completely separated.
Sure, but in the case of Japan they didn't have a choice. If the conventional railway network would have used a gauge that would allow high speed operations the Shinkansen would have been built to that gauge also.

And you are forgetting one thing: You can mix different railway gauges in the same right of way. You will see examples of that everywhere that several railway gauges co-exist.
But you can't mix maglev and conventional rail in the same right of way.

In Japan there are several "mini Shinkansen" routes, where existing narrow gauge routes were either converted to standard or mixed gauge to allow through running from the Shinkansen network.
K_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 31st, 2012, 03:50 PM   #173
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 K_ View Post
And you are forgetting one thing: You can mix different railway gauges in the same right of way. You will see examples of that everywhere that several railway gauges co-exist.
But you can't mix maglev and conventional rail in the same right of way.
It might be dangerous to do so in high-speed tracks, especially concerning switches if no speed reduction happens.

You can have 200 km/h switches, but never on a dual-gauge railway.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 31st, 2012, 05:01 PM   #174
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,744
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
It might be dangerous to do so in high-speed tracks, especially concerning switches if no speed reduction happens.

You can have 200 km/h switches, but never on a dual-gauge railway.
AFAIK Japan doesn't have dual-gauge high speed railways. For mini-shinkansen operation they will usually just regauge a line, bu use it at more or less conventional speeds. Dual guage is only build where conventional locals need to share the same right of way, it is not widespread.
The purpose is only to offer a single seat ride.
K_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 31st, 2012, 05:48 PM   #175
Think
...or not to be...
 
Think's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,428
Likes (Received): 158

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
It might be dangerous to do so in high-speed tracks, especially concerning switches if no speed reduction happens.

You can have 200 km/h switches, but never on a dual-gauge railway.
Current switches for dual-gauge lines in Spain have the same requeriments than the normal ones. They only serve one gauge so the're the same than any other high speed switch. You could see here that the switch only affects one gauge (in this case, broad gauge, and note that this is not a high speed one):


Wikipedia

The problem is that the swith have to be to the left for one gauge and to the rigth for the other gauge in all the line. In the case of the photo above all the switches for the narrower should be to the right.

It exists a system to change the side of the rails to permit that one gauge could have switches to both sides, it's this system who requires speed limitations. But if you build the lines with all the switches to the same side this problem does not exist and the're not special speed limitations. If you use the system the speed limitations only affects one of the two gauges.

They exist a lot of other problems with dual-gauge explotation. Also they could be the trains who are dual-gauge instead of the tracks.
Think no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 31st, 2012, 07:29 PM   #176
trainrover
:-x
 
trainrover's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,787
Likes (Received): 738

,(stemming from this video)
__________________
.
hee hee
.
trainrover no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 1st, 2012, 09:22 AM   #177
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,744
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by Think View Post
The problem is that the swith have to be to the left for one gauge and to the rigth for the other gauge in all the line. In the case of the photo above all the switches for the narrower should be to the right.
You can have switches to both sides without a problem. See this example:



However, such complicated point work would be unacceptable in high speed lines.
K_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 1st, 2012, 10:05 AM   #178
Coccodrillo
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 7,200
Likes (Received): 767

Quote:
Originally Posted by K_ View Post
You can have switches to both sides without a problem. See this example:
It depends on the gauges. You can do that if the difference between them is enough (like 1435 - 1000 = 435 mm like in this example), but it's impossible if the difference is thinner (1668 - 1435 = 229 mm).
__________________
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 February 1st, 2012, 02:52 PM   #179
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,744
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coccodrillo View Post
It depends on the gauges. You can do that if the difference between them is enough (like 1435 - 1000 = 435 mm like in this example), but it's impossible if the difference is thinner (1668 - 1435 = 229 mm).
But you can have the smaller gauge "change sides". At least that's what I've seen in Australia, where they also have a lot of experience with multiple gauge issues. (But for some reason never got the idea to buy Talgos...)
K_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 1st, 2012, 08:54 PM   #180
mgk920
Nonhyphenated-American
 
mgk920's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Appleton, WI USA
Posts: 2,583
Likes (Received): 68

And then if you have such an insidiously small difference between gauges such as with 1435 mm in central and western Europe, China and North America v. 1520 mm in the former Soviet Union (85 mm difference), the 'three rail' dual gauge track itself (as shown in above posts) is impossible, making things much more expensive and problematic. Short of regauging one or the other, you'll need either four-rail track or two separate grades.

Mike
mgk920 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