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 November 16th, 2010, 09:19 PM   #501
YesToHS2
Registered User
 
YesToHS2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 35
Likes (Received): 0

Latest article from Yes To HS2 HS2 High Speed 2, what/who to believe
YesToHS2 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old November 16th, 2010, 10:19 PM   #502
endrity
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,494
Likes (Received): 720

Quote:
Originally Posted by 33Hz View Post
While 400 km/h may seem high to us now, one only has to look back at previous milestones in HSR development to see how we might reach this before HS2 comes into service. Historically, HSR has increased in speed by approximately 30 km/h every decade: First there was Japan in the early 1960s with 200 km/h, then by 1980 the first TGVs were running at 270 km/h. By 1990 this was up to 300 km/h and by 2000 the ICE3 was able to run at 330km/h. In 2010 we have Siemens, Alstom and the Chinese manufacturers all offering 360 km/h capable trains, with 380 km/h coming into service in China over the coming year and also soon to be available from Bombardier.

Korea is working on a 400 km/h product and the Chinese have stated that they want to go faster still, so I think 400 km/h 15 years from now is perfectly reasonable to expect, if not even conservative. We may well see increased use of lightweight carbon fibre in train structures and harder steel in rails and wheels that together are able to make maintenance at this speed acceptable.

But the overarching point is that this is about a once in a lifetime chance to secure the permanent way, and any compromise on the route now means we are stuck with what we get for the next 100 years.
That's exactly why they should have looked into maglev more. The biggest advantage of late development is that you can build with the newest technologies in mind.
endrity no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 17th, 2010, 12:02 AM   #503
poshbakerloo
***Alexxx***
 
poshbakerloo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: London, Manchester, Cheshire, Sheffield, Moscow
Posts: 5,090
Likes (Received): 285

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maarten Otto View Post
Why? capacity on long distance isn't the issue... capacity on those inter urban connections is.
You need to travel Manchester Piccadilly-London Euston. That route is rammed! I take the train from Macclesfield, it only takes 1hr 40mins which is pretty good, but it is always so busy!

The XC routes to Birmingham are even worse!
__________________
"BEFORE WE MARRY...I HAVE A SECRET!"

I <3 London
poshbakerloo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 17th, 2010, 12:19 AM   #504
YesToHS2
Registered User
 
YesToHS2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 35
Likes (Received): 0

Anyone who says that trains aren't busy mustn't use them. Services aren't only busy south of Birmingham, as Poshbakerloo said trains leaving stations in the North Such as Manchester, Liverpool and reportedly Warrington are full before they even arrive at stations such as Milton Keynes and Rugby.

There is an alternative. 6 track the WCML to Stafford, I'm sure people that live close the WCML won't mind at all.
YesToHS2 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 17th, 2010, 12:38 AM   #505
33Hz
Registered User
 
33Hz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 436
Likes (Received): 47

Quote:
Originally Posted by endrity View Post
That's exactly why they should have looked into maglev more. The biggest advantage of late development is that you can build with the newest technologies in mind.

If we had Chinese levels of cash reserves, I would say yes, but the fact is we don't.

The project needs to be structured to optimise cashflows and that means one leg at a time. Maglev doesn't easily allow that - passengers would have to pile out of one train and into another and that doesn't cut it with your average business traveler.
33Hz no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 17th, 2010, 12:47 AM   #506
SamuraiBlue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,232
Likes (Received): 195

Quote:
Originally Posted by 33Hz View Post
While 400 km/h may seem high to us now, one only has to look back at previous milestones in HSR development to see how we might reach this before HS2 comes into service. Historically, HSR has increased in speed by approximately 30 km/h every decade: First there was Japan in the early 1960s with 200 km/h, then by 1980 the first TGVs were running at 270 km/h. By 1990 this was up to 300 km/h and by 2000 the ICE3 was able to run at 330km/h. In 2010 we have Siemens, Alstom and the Chinese manufacturers all offering 360 km/h capable trains, with 380 km/h coming into service in China over the coming year and also soon to be available from Bombardier.

Korea is working on a 400 km/h product and the Chinese have stated that they want to go faster still, so I think 400 km/h 15 years from now is perfectly reasonable to expect, if not even conservative. We may well see increased use of lightweight carbon fibre in train structures and harder steel in rails and wheels that together are able to make maintenance at this speed acceptable.

But the overarching point is that this is about a once in a lifetime chance to secure the permanent way, and any compromise on the route now means we are stuck with what we get for the next 100 years.
Developing a train running at 400Km/h is technically feasible but it will need more power than to run maglevs making it a poor economic choice.
Same as metallurgy, rails made from Tungsten alloys is possible but it is with a cost, first the Tungsten which is much more costly then steel, second all the present maintenance tools would be needed to be renewed and, third maintenance of the boogies will raise exponentially through abrasion from the rails.
All this raise in cost will return back to ticket price making it more expensive than plane tickets.
This is the very reason why JR Central started their pursuit for Maglev technology since they saw the potential economic limit in conventional wheel on rail technology.

== Edit ==

One more thing although construction costs for Transrapid seems to be higher, it can be offset by ROW acquisition cost since conventional HSR requires larger curve radius then maglevs.


In the bottom part you'll find a comparison chart of curve radii. 400Km/h conventional HSR will require more than 7000m radius curves.

== End edit ==

Last edited by SamuraiBlue; November 17th, 2010 at 01:32 AM.
SamuraiBlue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 17th, 2010, 01:27 AM   #507
33Hz
Registered User
 
33Hz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 436
Likes (Received): 47

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuraiBlue View Post
Developing a train running at 400Km/h is technically feasible but it will need more power than to run maglevs making it a poor economic choice.
I am not sure why this requires more power - aerodynamic drag is the dominant factor at such high speed, not rolling resistance.

Quote:
second all the present maintenance tools would be needed to be renewed.
This is surely nothing compared to the novel maintenance tools required for a maglev track...
33Hz no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 17th, 2010, 01:52 AM   #508
SamuraiBlue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,232
Likes (Received): 195

Quote:
Originally Posted by 33Hz View Post
I am not sure why this requires more power - aerodynamic drag is the dominant factor at such high speed, not rolling resistance.



This is surely nothing compared to the novel maintenance tools required for a maglev track...
Although it is a crude approximation but JR Central released a memo stating that their Maglev system running at 500Km/h requires twice the amount of energy per person per Km compared to N700 series running at 285Km/h.
If you extrapolate the figures;

40,613m=1/2m285^2
80,000m=1/2m400^2
(m=mass)

As for acqusition of new tools yes you'll need new diagnostic tools whether it be Maglev or conventional 400Km/h with tungsten rails but Maglevs does not have physical contact with the guide way so there will be no wear and tear through normal usage of the track meaning minimal wear and tear to the tools as well where as conventional HSR you'll need constant maintenance changing the worn out grinding bits.
SamuraiBlue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 17th, 2010, 02:11 AM   #509
Maarten Otto
Registered User
 
Maarten Otto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Almere (Greater Amsterdam)
Posts: 464
Likes (Received): 24

Quote:
Originally Posted by poshbakerloo View Post
You need to travel Manchester Piccadilly-London Euston. That route is rammed! I take the train from Macclesfield, it only takes 1hr 40mins which is pretty good, but it is always so busy!

The XC routes to Birmingham are even worse!
Cross country isn't even using their trains. They have 5 HST sets, of wich 2 are not in daily service and 1 is sub-leased by East Coast. Furthermore they run 4 and 5 car trains (22x class) where they would need 7 to 9 car trains at the moment, and 11 car trains in future. Will that even fit in New Street?

As for the Manchester to London route... Been there, done that and got the t-shirt. What a crappy route the WCML is. No fly overs and numurouse speed restrictions for junctions.... There goes your capacity. Okay, I live in Holland and we don't have 125 mph trains, what we do have is decent i frastructure that is maximised to run as many trains as possible by having 98% of jubctions made of fly overs and dive unders... Combine that to the use of hundreds of double deckers and you have a system that works.

The Amsterdam -Utrecht route for example handles 8 Intercity services and 4 local services per hour per direction... Then there are still 2 fast paths for ICE and other trains, and 2 freight paths in either direction.

Those 16 intercity's per hour consist of at least 8 cars double decker stock with a minimum of 800 seats. Trains can be up to 12 coaches long with around 1200 seats per train.

A race track is nice, but not if it's junctions force all trains to reduce speed and is not capable of handling high capacity trains so much needed these days.
Maarten Otto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 17th, 2010, 02:38 AM   #510
Maarten Otto
Registered User
 
Maarten Otto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Almere (Greater Amsterdam)
Posts: 464
Likes (Received): 24

Quote:
Originally Posted by 33Hz View Post
.




Please explain?
This from Govia's website... The HS1 operator...

The underlying subsidy increased by £74.7m as agreed in the bidding process, primarily to recognise the additional high speed costs in Southeastern.
Maarten Otto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 17th, 2010, 08:47 AM   #511
33Hz
Registered User
 
33Hz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 436
Likes (Received): 47

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuraiBlue View Post
One more thing although construction costs for Transrapid seems to be higher, it can be offset by ROW acquisition cost since conventional HSR requires larger curve radius then maglevs.

In the bottom part you'll find a comparison chart of curve radii. 400Km/h conventional HSR will require more than 7000m radius curves.
While the maintenance issue seems logical, I'm not sure I buy the curve radius argument for maglev. Passenger comfort in a corner will be the same regardless of whether the vehicle has wheels.
33Hz no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 17th, 2010, 08:52 AM   #512
33Hz
Registered User
 
33Hz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 436
Likes (Received): 47

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maarten Otto View Post
This from Govia's website... The HS1 operator...

The underlying subsidy increased by £74.7m as agreed in the bidding process, primarily to recognise the additional high speed costs in Southeastern.

Ah, subsidy to the operator...

This has more to do with the previous government's policy of routing HS1 to St Pancras than a flaw with high speed rail in the UK in general. For reasons best known to them, they have tried to force commuters to go to the other side of central London rather than their usual stations at London Bridge or Charing Cross. Unsurprisingly, these high speed commuter trains are not full. I recently took one out of London in the morning and I almost had it to myself.

Both sides hope that over time jobs will relocate to the areas of the new stations, but that will take years and hence the need for agreed subsidy.
33Hz no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 17th, 2010, 09:52 AM   #513
33Hz
Registered User
 
33Hz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 436
Likes (Received): 47

Fast train will bring pain, not gain - chamber chief

Quote:
"To be truthful, the distance from Coventry to London does not merit a high-speed train for me. I would say a 180mph train would be quite adequate - a 240mph one would scare me. The cost of this is quite frightening."
33Hz no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 17th, 2010, 10:18 AM   #514
SamuraiBlue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,232
Likes (Received): 195

Quote:
Originally Posted by 33Hz View Post
While the maintenance issue seems logical, I'm not sure I buy the curve radius argument for maglev. Passenger comfort in a corner will be the same regardless of whether the vehicle has wheels.
It's not about comfort, it's about safety.
The difference of cant deficiency is based on two factors one is comfort as you mentioned the other is about safety not noted by many conventional HSR advocates.
The limitation in cant for HSR compared to maglev is because when conventional HSR makes an emergency stop within a curve it faces a possibility of toppling over since center of gravity is offset by the difference in super elevation of one rail to the other. This is self explanatory by the difference of cant between freight and passenger where freight will have higher center of gravity due to stacking of freight within cabin to maximize capacity.
Maglev does not have this limitation since Transrapid system remains elevated even if there is a power shortage and JR system can just elevate the coils while maintaining horizontal grounds.
The Shanghai transrapid system has a cant of 12 degrees and no one has complained yet.
SamuraiBlue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 17th, 2010, 10:36 AM   #515
33Hz
Registered User
 
33Hz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 436
Likes (Received): 47

Well to be fair, the Transrapid system remains elevated for as long as its emergency batteries hold out...

However, if super elevation is the issue, why not employ a tilt system like some Japanese HSR trains?


There is another factor that counts against maglev and that is EU funding, which if we are smart we will use, but this only applies to standard HSR.
33Hz no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 17th, 2010, 10:40 AM   #516
makita09
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,536
Likes (Received): 92

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maarten Otto View Post
This from Govia's website... The HS1 operator...

The underlying subsidy increased by £74.7m as agreed in the bidding process, primarily to recognise the additional high speed costs in Southeastern.
This is due to lower revenues than expected partly due to the downturn and partly due to the delay in new housing in the thames gateway projects around Gravesend and Ebbsfleet.

It is part of the cap-and-collar element of the cencession which many TOCs have in their contracts.

The more sensible high speed services to Ashford and beyond a doing better, but thats because they are quicker than the other services.
makita09 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 17th, 2010, 11:07 AM   #517
makita09
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,536
Likes (Received): 92

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maarten Otto View Post
Cross country isn't even using their trains. They have 5 HST sets, of wich 2 are not in daily service and 1 is sub-leased by East Coast. Furthermore they run 4 and 5 car trains (22x class) where they would need 7 to 9 car trains at the moment, and 11 car trains in future. Will that even fit in New Street?
Partly because only the central sections experience severe overcrowding, and double-sets would cart a lot of air about for other 5 hours of their journey. This I think is an argument for a dedicated hgih speed service between Brimingham and Manchester, and Birmingham and Sheffield/Leeds.

Yes Birmingham New street can take the longer trains. Most of its platforms are around 300m, the longest 350m. 11-car pendolinos will be 265m, the longest 5+5 car 22x is about 230m.

Quote:
As for the Manchester to London route... Been there, done that and got the t-shirt. What a crappy route the WCML is. No fly overs and numurouse speed restrictions for junctions.... There goes your capacity.
Apart from both ends of Rugby station, Nuneaton, and weaver junction where the line to Liverpool diverges. The first speed restriction at a junction out of London is Stafford, about an hour into the journey. Basically the imprtant bits where there are the most high speed train conflicts are grade separated.

Quote:
A race track is nice, but not if it's junctions force all trains to reduce speed and is not capable of handling high capacity trains so much needed these days.
Yes but it doesn't though. It used to, that was what the expensive upgrade was for. Now Milton Keynes, Rugby, Tamworth, Lichfield and Nuneaton all have trains passing through at 125 mph. It is unfinished business however and Stafford and Crewe still require attention, as does the Norton Bridge junction soon to be addressed by Network Rail.

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/documen...oposal_map.pdf

Norton Bridge (option A recently announced as preferred option)

Yet if the WCML is so bad why would you say this is an argument against HS2? HS2 is to add capacity, and to avoid the near decade of disruption to passengers whilst upgrades take place.
makita09 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 17th, 2010, 11:18 AM   #518
YesToHS2
Registered User
 
YesToHS2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 35
Likes (Received): 0

I love the way critics use HS1 as an argument against HSR. Yes from all accounts it's not as was as accepted but as was just mentions it was finished around the time of the economic downturn. I don't see selling a 30 year lease for £2.1bn as an abject failure. The government have the opportunity to sell another lease in another 30 years which will probably cover the cost of construction alone.
YesToHS2 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 17th, 2010, 11:47 AM   #519
SamuraiBlue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,232
Likes (Received): 195

Quote:
Originally Posted by 33Hz View Post
Well to be fair, the Transrapid system remains elevated for as long as its emergency batteries hold out...

However, if super elevation is the issue, why not employ a tilt system like some Japanese HSR trains?


There is another factor that counts against maglev and that is EU funding, which if we are smart we will use, but this only applies to standard HSR.
Even if batteries runs out it still will not topple over due to it's design.
As for tilt, the N700 series only tilts 1 degree, there is still a 4 degree difference and I believe it becomes more dangerous to tilt at higher speed.

== Edit ==

As for funding can't argue there since that is the rules but again you'll have to do the math of subsidies against higher maintenance cost.

Last edited by SamuraiBlue; November 17th, 2010 at 12:05 PM.
SamuraiBlue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 17th, 2010, 11:49 AM   #520
makita09
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,536
Likes (Received): 92

Quote:
Originally Posted by 33Hz View Post
Well to be fair, the Transrapid system remains elevated for as long as its emergency batteries hold out...

However, if super elevation is the issue, why not employ a tilt system like some Japanese HSR trains?


There is another factor that counts against maglev and that is EU funding, which if we are smart we will use, but this only applies to standard HSR.
Don't bother - this has all been discussed at length here. There is no argument you can make that will fit with his world view on the redundency of steel wheel railways.

I urge everybody not to discuss Maglev here, as this is about HS2 and not Maglev. If you want to find out why the Department for Transport, Network Rail, ATOC, Greenguage 21 and HS2 ltd have ruled out Maglev, bore yourself with that link above. The pointless argument has been trashed out to death atthe above link, as well as on this thread.
makita09 no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
high speed rail, hs2, railways, scotland, trains

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 12:15 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