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 17th, 2010, 11:54 AM   #521
SamuraiBlue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,232
Likes (Received): 195

Quote:
Originally Posted by makita09 View Post
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.
You still cannot win the arguments that I have presented.
SamuraiBlue no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old November 17th, 2010, 12:21 PM   #522
makita09
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,536
Likes (Received): 92

Quote:
Originally Posted by YesToHS2 View Post
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.
Yeah exactly. For a line that has been open 3 years, with domestic services on it only 1 year old, in an economic downturn lasting a few years, to sell a 30-year concession for £2.1bn is a fair vote of confidence in the potential of the infrastructure. Especially as there were other similar rival bids meaning that the winners aren't likely to be lunatics with too much money.

Eurostar are to expand their services, DB are to introduce new services. Eurotunnel and GB Railfreight are looking to start running freight at night. Southeastern aren't likely to reduce services, just recieve a bit of govt support until the new residential and commercial areas are built near Ebbfleet station, and Gravesend station is improved.
makita09 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 17th, 2010, 12:30 PM   #523
33Hz
Registered User
 
33Hz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 436
Likes (Received): 47

Agreed. Please do not turn the thread into yet another maglev vs steel wheel debate. The intention here is to discuss developments with HS2, which for better or worse has been decided will be a normal HSR line. There are sound technical, economic and strategic reasons for this.
33Hz no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 17th, 2010, 12:57 PM   #524
SamuraiBlue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,232
Likes (Received): 195

Quote:
Originally Posted by 33Hz View Post
Agreed. Please do not turn the thread into yet another maglev vs steel wheel debate. The intention here is to discuss developments with HS2, which for better or worse has been decided will be a normal HSR line. There are sound technical, economic and strategic reasons for this.
The final decision has not been made concerning HS2 and whether it has sound technical and/or economical reasons is highly debatable since I can even make holes into it.

One thing for certain is, a high speed mass ground transit will be beneficial for distance of 200Km ~ 1,000Km whether it be conventional wheel on rail or maglev. The question is which is more beneficial in the long run considering future compatibility, maintenance, scalability and, overall economy.

You certainly do not what to be stuck with a product that is near the end of it's shelf life.
SamuraiBlue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 17th, 2010, 01:12 PM   #525
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,744
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuraiBlue View Post
You certainly do not what to be stuck with a product that is near the end of it's shelf life.
Well, steel on steel rail technologiy certainly isn't at the end of it's shelf life...
K_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 17th, 2010, 01:32 PM   #526
33Hz
Registered User
 
33Hz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 436
Likes (Received): 47

You also do not want to be stuck with a product that no one else is using. We’ve been here before too many times…

Transrapid could not sell their product in Germany – twice – even at a time when “made here” still counted for a lot.

They could not sell a national system to the Chinese when they had a 1 trillion dollar budget and where land costs are minimal.


In order for Transrapid to be cost-competative with HSR in the the UK, it requires an accounting trick of building the line on stilts so that the air rights can be leased from land holders and the entire right of way costs can be moved off the bottom line and into future Op-Ex.

For reasons I’ve said above, HS2 (3, 4, etc) needs to be a phased project so that cash flows can be managed and the country is not lumbered with massive interest payments on a big-bang approach loan. Maglev cannot offer that.

I do not deny that it is amazing technology, but there is no way this is going to happen in the UK unless Transrapid offers to underwrite the construction of an entire national network themselves and offers a cast iron guarantee that they will be around to service the infrastructure for the next 100 years. How realistic is that?


I’m sorry, but the window of opportunity for this closed around about 2006. Any further attempts by UK Ultraspeed or Transrapid to change this decision will at best fall on deaf ears and at worst delay things by a further four years. The Transport Secretary has distanced himself from the UK Ultraspeed route choice and I don’t see him performing a u-turn.


Now can we please get back on-topic?
33Hz no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 17th, 2010, 02:18 PM   #527
SamuraiBlue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,232
Likes (Received): 195

Quote:
Originally Posted by K_ View Post
Well, steel on steel rail technologiy certainly isn't at the end of it's shelf life...
Well it will be at a stand still at most since there is no more room for potential speed gain due to economic limitation compared to other technology.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 33Hz View Post
You also do not want to be stuck with a product that no one else is using. We’ve been here before too many times…

Transrapid could not sell their product in Germany – twice – even at a time when “made here” still counted for a lot.

They could not sell a national system to the Chinese when they had a 1 trillion dollar budget and where land costs are minimal.


In order for Transrapid to be cost-competative with HSR in the the UK, it requires an accounting trick of building the line on stilts so that the air rights can be leased from land holders and the entire right of way costs can be moved off the bottom line and into future Op-Ex.

For reasons I’ve said above, HS2 (3, 4, etc) needs to be a phased project so that cash flows can be managed and the country is not lumbered with massive interest payments on a big-bang approach loan. Maglev cannot offer that.

I do not deny that it is amazing technology, but there is no way this is going to happen in the UK unless Transrapid offers to underwrite the construction of an entire national network themselves and offers a cast iron guarantee that they will be around to service the infrastructure for the next 100 years. How realistic is that?


I’m sorry, but the window of opportunity for this closed around about 2006. Any further attempts by UK Ultraspeed or Transrapid to change this decision will at best fall on deaf ears and at worst delay things by a further four years. The Transport Secretary has distanced himself from the UK Ultraspeed route choice and I don’t see him performing a u-turn.


Now can we please get back on-topic?
Again the final decision has not been made.
Conventional wheel on rail cannot guarantee promise that had been made by HS2 limited either.
They promised for a 400Km/h train so they can mow through Rural England based on a future train set that may or may not come to reality. As I said 400Km/h conventional HS trains are technologically feasible but it is a poor choice economically making it difficult for corporation to invest.
If there are no train sets meeting the specifications as promised at the point of inauguration then the whole project would be a sign as a waste of taxpayers money for protesters which will condemn any further project for expansion in which case Britain will be stuck with a half baked plan which would not solve many of the promises made.
SamuraiBlue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 17th, 2010, 02:35 PM   #528
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,744
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by 33Hz View Post
You also do not want to be stuck with a product that no one else is using. We’ve been here before too many times…
Indeed.

One serious problem with products like transrapid (and other niche transportation technologies like monorails, guided light transit, translohr, Val) is that they are proprietary.
That means you're at the mercy of a single supplier.
With conventional rail you don't have that problem.
K_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 17th, 2010, 02:38 PM   #529
33Hz
Registered User
 
33Hz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 436
Likes (Received): 47

The decision was made in 2007. Despite what UK Ultraspeed may say, the consultation period into next year is about finalised route options and economic factors, not the fundamental technology of the system.

The reason this decision was arrived at is that on a like for like basis, maglev was found to be twice as expensive as HSR. You may protest this, but UK Ultraspeed have been always been very careful with their wording and they do not include land costs - prefering (as I said above) to elevate the track and then lease the right of way. Well, HSR could do that to, but the reason it is not being proposed is down to cost, asthetics and emissions from all that concrete.

The game is up. Please try somewhere else.
33Hz no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 17th, 2010, 03:02 PM   #530
SamuraiBlue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,232
Likes (Received): 195

Quote:
Originally Posted by K_ View Post
Indeed.

One serious problem with products like transrapid (and other niche transportation technologies like monorails, guided light transit, translohr, Val) is that they are proprietary.
That means you're at the mercy of a single supplier.
With conventional rail you don't have that problem.
Somewhat true although I have not heard of monorails being proprietary.
JR maglev system is also not completely proprietary since the basic technology is open source. The biggest proprietary asset would be the metallurgic super conductive material but then again most of the motors within HSR are as well.
Switching terminals and other supportive resources also have patents on them but so do most of the supportive system in conventional HSR as well.

The problem with Transrapid system is that it is a total system of both guideway and train set while JR system is not and can be broken down to individual components.
SamuraiBlue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 17th, 2010, 04:13 PM   #531
SamuraiBlue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,232
Likes (Received): 195

Quote:
Originally Posted by 33Hz View Post
The decision was made in 2007. Despite what UK Ultraspeed may say, the consultation period into next year is about finalised route options and economic factors, not the fundamental technology of the system.

The reason this decision was arrived at is that on a like for like basis, maglev was found to be twice as expensive as HSR. You may protest this, but UK Ultraspeed have been always been very careful with their wording and they do not include land costs - prefering (as I said above) to elevate the track and then lease the right of way. Well, HSR could do that to, but the reason it is not being proposed is down to cost, asthetics and emissions from all that concrete.

The game is up. Please try somewhere else.
Sorry but the game is not up since you can count me as an opposite opinion against HS2 based on my knowledge on maglev and conventional HSR.
I firmly believe the plan should be reconsidered and drawn from scratch.
SamuraiBlue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 17th, 2010, 04:30 PM   #532
33Hz
Registered User
 
33Hz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 436
Likes (Received): 47

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuraiBlue View Post
Sorry but the game is not up since you can count me as an opposite opinion against HS2 based on my knowledge on maglev and conventional HSR.
I firmly believe the plan should be reconsidered and drawn from scratch.
I'm sure that the British government will give your views all the consideration they deserve.
33Hz no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 17th, 2010, 05:38 PM   #533
YesToHS2
Registered User
 
YesToHS2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 35
Likes (Received): 0

I'm sure maglev is a great but I think advocates of maglev are missing a fundamental point of HS2. It will use classic compatible trains which will be able to run on the WCML, this is a major selling point as HS2 will be able to be better integrated in the current network. If you use a maglev system the people of the north will not have access to HS2 until it reaches Manchester and Leeds then places such as Liverpool will be written out of the HS2 equation. I am not going to argue about the merits of each choice. I will leave you with one thought though, does anybody remember Brunel's far superior 7 ft gauge?

Please can we return this to a debate on HS2 as is currently planned.
YesToHS2 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 17th, 2010, 09:36 PM   #534
bluemeansgo
Registered User
 
bluemeansgo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 451
Likes (Received): 124



Note: The Japanese Mag-lev system IS indeed steel wheels on Steel tracks. The wheels retract when it reaches around 150km/h and it floats about 10cm above the rails.

The fact that there are rails also means that a future hybrid "could" potentially run on existing electrified lines... or the line could be converted to a regular pantograph system if need be.

As for the "tilt" of the Tokaido Shinkansen. It was needed in order to allow the trains to go at a full speed of 270km/h on that portion of the line. The original line was built at a 2500m track radius and for 210km/h max speeds.

The Sanyo Line (West of Osaka) was built for much higher speeds (4000m track radius) and travels regularly at 300km/h. I'm not sure about it's max design speed.

Tohoku Line's design speed was targetted at 360km/h, but because of noise concerns, it was scaled back. Japan has a lot more tunnels and the strictest noise regulations in the world. The tunnels are also why they have some of the most interesting and dare I say some of the nicest, designs for their trains.

I think the JR mag-lev is supposed to be 10,000m but I can't remember where i saw that.

Chinese HSR is 8,000m I believe.

California's HSR is supposed to be 6,500m. (Planned speed is 360km/h)

What is HS2's track radius?

Remember, the most VALUABLE part of these lines is the ROW (Right of Way). 100 years from now, your grandchildren will thank you for putting in a nice straight ROW that they can run Mag-Lev (or maybe even anti-gravity trains) down.
bluemeansgo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 17th, 2010, 11:23 PM   #535
33Hz
Registered User
 
33Hz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 436
Likes (Received): 47

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluemeansgo View Post
Note: The Japanese Mag-lev system IS indeed steel wheels on Steel tracks. The wheels retract when it reaches around 150km/h and it floats about 10cm above the rails.
I thought it had rubber tired wheels, or did they change that?

Quote:
I think the JR mag-lev is supposed to be 10,000m but I can't remember where i saw that.
Wow, that's a lot. Fine if you are putting most of the line under mountains I suppose, but quite a lot more than the Transrapid people claim.


Quote:
What is HS2's track radius?
There is no hard and fast number, they just say this:

The minimum radius of curvature shall be determined on the basis of line speed, cant and cant deficiency applied.

From page 19, here: http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/hi...pdf/report.pdf

Quote:
Remember, the most VALUABLE part of these lines is the ROW (Right of Way). 100 years from now, your grandchildren will thank you for putting in a nice straight ROW that they can run Mag-Lev (or maybe even anti-gravity trains) down.

Absolutely. Imagine if Brunel and his contemporaries had built their lines according to the top speed of the trains at the time.
33Hz no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 18th, 2010, 02:20 AM   #536
bluemeansgo
Registered User
 
bluemeansgo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 451
Likes (Received): 124

Quote:
Originally Posted by 33Hz View Post
I thought it had rubber tired wheels, or did they change that?
That's from memory and I remember seeing a video where the wheels retract. I can't find it now.
Quote:
Wow, that's a lot. Fine if you are putting most of the line under mountains I suppose, but quite a lot more than the Transrapid people claim.
A lot of the line IS underground, which reduces the need to worry about the "tunnel boom" effect. Japan is an island of Vocanoes, after all. And sorry, I was mistaken. The ORIGINAL Test Track in Miyazaki had a minimum 10,000m turn radius. The New[er] test track in Yamanashi (which will become part of the line) has a track radius of 8000m. source

Remember the Japanese are typically VERY conservative. Which is why trains the Japanese licensed to run at ~250km/h were bought by China and subsequently upped to 300km/h. They typically build a 25% margin of error into their calculations when it comes to max speed.

I don't think the 8000m number is NECESSARY for that speed, but they were burned by making the Tokaido Line only 2500m and probably want to allow for MUCH faster operation in the future. Remember, JR's Maglev technology can run at MUCH higher speeds than transrapid trains much more safely.

Still, 8000m is a pretty decent number to future proof a corridor, whether it's HSR or Maglev. For UK, I think I'd like to see a minimum of 6,500m, but ideally 8000m for a track radius, especially when you get out into the countryside.

Last edited by bluemeansgo; November 18th, 2010 at 02:25 AM.
bluemeansgo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 18th, 2010, 02:37 AM   #537
SamuraiBlue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,232
Likes (Received): 195

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluemeansgo View Post
That's from memory and I remember seeing a video where the wheels retract. I can't find it now.

A lot of the line IS underground, which reduces the need to worry about the "tunnel boom" effect. Japan is an island of Vocanoes, after all. And sorry, I was mistaken. The ORIGINAL Test Track in Miyazaki had a minimum 10,000m turn radius. The New[er] test track in Yamanashi (which will become part of the line) has a track radius of 8000m. source

Remember the Japanese are typically VERY conservative. Which is why trains the Japanese licensed to run at ~250km/h were bought by China and subsequently upped to 300km/h. They typically build a 25% margin of error into their calculations when it comes to max speed.

I don't think the 8000m number is NECESSARY for that speed, but they were burned by making the Tokaido Line only 2500m and probably want to allow for MUCH faster operation in the future. Remember, JR's Maglev technology can run at MUCH higher speeds than transrapid trains much more safely.

Still, 8000m is a pretty decent number to future proof a corridor, whether it's HSR or Maglev. For UK, I think I'd like to see a minimum of 6,500m, but ideally 8000m for a track radius, especially when you get out into the countryside.
The study you posted is pretty old with examples that are two generation in the past.
The test track's minimum radius does not necessarily relate to the design minimum since the test tracks were planned to be part of the Chuo Shinkansen line. (I do not know what the minimum radius is for JR type maglevs which are different from Transrapid's)

The 25% is not an error margin, it is a safety margin safety margin designated by JR.
SamuraiBlue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 18th, 2010, 07:25 AM   #538
bluemeansgo
Registered User
 
bluemeansgo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 451
Likes (Received): 124

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuraiBlue View Post
The study you posted is pretty old with examples that are two generation in the past.
The test track's minimum radius does not necessarily relate to the design minimum since the test tracks were planned to be part of the Chuo Shinkansen line. (I do not know what the minimum radius is for JR type maglevs which are different from Transrapid's)

The 25% is not an error margin, it is a safety margin safety margin designated by JR.
True, the study is old.

However, the Yamanashi Test track was planned a long time ago and has been in use fo 14 years now. Also, as far as i know, The JR Maglev will be called the "Chuo Shinkansen" when it is done... essentially it IS the Chuo line.

You're correct about the semantics of 25% being a safety margin, which is still a conservative margin.
bluemeansgo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 18th, 2010, 10:23 AM   #539
makita09
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,536
Likes (Received): 92

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluemeansgo View Post
Remember, the most VALUABLE part of these lines is the ROW (Right of Way). 100 years from now, your grandchildren will thank you for putting in a nice straight ROW that they can run Mag-Lev (or maybe even anti-gravity trains) down.
7200 metres.

http://www.hs2.org.uk/assets/x/77048

(Page 17)

Quote:
Minimum desirable
radius of curvature:

200 kph: 1800m

300 kph: 4050m

360 kph: 5900m

400 kph: 7200m

Last edited by makita09; November 18th, 2010 at 11:00 AM.
makita09 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 18th, 2010, 01:53 PM   #540
Dobbo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,457
Likes (Received): 269

I have to say the most interesting things that I can think of would be the station layouts. By that I mean there are compelling cases for (at major cities) having a city centre station, a parkway station and an airport station.

Of course, in Birmingham the airport/parkway station is combined and the city centre stop is on a spur. For somewhere Like Manchester could the mainline pretty much plough through the centre of town in a tunnel or would the Spur need to be used again? I am not sure of the arguments as to the pros and cons of each method (other than cost) and it would be interesting to hear some thoughts.

I feel that the developing of High Speed Lines in the UK gives a great opportunity to integrate these presumably new stations with existing or planned metro/tram systems in cities such as Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Liverpool, Nottingham.

It is good that the government seem to be supporting getting the line to Sheffield and Leeds as soon as possible and I would hope that by that time the political will and economic situation/business case will be in place to allow expansion to Scotland, and possibly a line towards Cardiff (although thinking there seems to be that the great western railway can be upgraded to high speed and has little capacity problems at present).

In time, the Eastern leg could have its own dedicated route to London (I.e. not via Birmingham) and could perhaps bypass Euston and have Stratford as its London stop via Standstead airport and connect to HS1 - in effect also acting as a London equivalent of the Paris "Interconnexion" LGV.

Should the French construct the LGV Picardie, Paris-London Times could be cut to close to 1.30m - which would make the train competitive on routes for Paris from as far a field as Manchester, Brum and Leeds.

Undertaking to construct a network as extensive as this would for me be one of the most important things the current generation can do. Reducing reliance on fossil fuels and reducing aircraft travel would be two of the major plus points to come from this. It would require more probably nuclear power stations, but these are very much in the pipeline and are environmentally sound provided they do not go into meltdown!

I sympathise massively with people who may be affected by this construction and agree that they must be properly compensated. However, they will not be able to stop a project of national significance - hence the environmental arguments. In the long run I am sure their kids and grand kids would appreciate the sacrifice...
Dobbo está en línea ahora   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 01:31 AM.


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