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.


View Poll Results: Should the US build or improve it's HSR network?
Yes 249 89.57%
No 29 10.43%
Voters: 278. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old December 5th, 2007, 01:08 AM   #301
Facial
Seeking truth from facts
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Los Angeles / San Diego
Posts: 636
Likes (Received): 10

I support the increases to 110 mph.

It is not so much out of the fear that a more ambitious jump to 180+mph trains would backfire, but more so along the lines of gradual improvement.

If 180+ mph is approved, then that would be magical - I would support that too. Anything is better than the speed of 79 mph, which is about as fast as passenger trains went in the 1930s... under steam.

It's time to break the 70-year hiatus. Even the most marginal of speed increments would be a breath of fresh air.
Facial no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old December 5th, 2007, 01:11 AM   #302
Tri-ring
Expert
 
Tri-ring's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 459
Likes (Received): 7

Quote:
Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
The system is expected to pay for itself. How is it in other countries. Does it operate at a loss? If so, how much per year?
Japan is doing quite fine thank you, Tokaido Shinkansen been in black for the more than 35 years paying back all construction cost within 10 years from inauguration. Other lines are also making profit.

Some people needs to learn that trains when operated properly makes profit.
__________________
banned for denial of war crimes in world war 2.
Tri-ring no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 5th, 2007, 01:48 AM   #303
33Hz
Registered User
 
33Hz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 436
Likes (Received): 47

Other systems operate in profit, but one lesson is that systems should be built incrementally - the interest on the capital can otherwise be too large.

However I would warn you against taking a small step to 110mph. It will be another generation at least before you get the opportunity to improve that, and it just isn't fast enough to get people out of their cars, yet alone planes.
33Hz no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 5th, 2007, 02:12 AM   #304
Grygry
Grygry
 
Grygry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,176
Likes (Received): 31

Quote:
Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
That all depends on whether or not California does it. Remember, the state is $10 billion in debt. It will be a very tough sell unless the state stops resting on its laurels and gets the budget fixed. The system is expected to pay for itself. How is it in other countries. Does it operate at a loss? If so, how much per year?
Not in France, but it depends if you take in account the company, the company+state, the company+state+taxpayer you get different results! SNCF operate profit on all high speed lines.
BTW TGV traffic in France is smaller, eg for Eurostar it is 7 million per year. For all France there are:
~1500 km of high speed sections
~700 TGVs a day (-> 350,000 passengers a small day)
~average distance must be 500 km

The interest in regard with the car/plane is the time you win, but in the USA due to the extended cities and lengthy "security" procedures in railway and very slow and unreliable trains stations you lose a lot of time. Comfort is also better than plane or car, and can also be improved to drain passengers - Amtrack doesn't seem to be aware of it!

The main interest of train is for commuting daily in big urban areas and intercity between two close big cities. This requires a comprehensive med speed network (100-150 mph) that can be improved for long distances (400-800 miles) using high speed (150-200mph). So far this seems a small step but it is necessary to move on for further high speed developments.

Last edited by Grygry; December 5th, 2007 at 02:19 AM.
Grygry no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 5th, 2007, 02:21 AM   #305
Canadian Chocho
Registered User
 
Canadian Chocho's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Managua/Toronto
Posts: 3,470
Likes (Received): 28

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!



ZOMFGLOLZ!! That's the funniest thing I've ever heard!!! You're a comic genius!! LMFAO!!

__________________
Colonial Cities

1 2 3
Canadian Chocho no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 5th, 2007, 04:55 AM   #306
bmfarley
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 54
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by miamicanes View Post
"...The opposition comes from "true HSR's" unholy up-front capital costs relative to relatively few users. $15 billion buried Boston's main freeway, doubled its capacity, and directly benefits about a million people every day. That same $15 billion would have been enough to build roughly 300 miles of "True HSR" track at ~$50 million/mile. I don't think even the TGV has that many passengers per day. And this is a comparison of the most expensive road improvement project in America with the busiest HSR network in the world. A more "normal" road project (like rebuilding and widening 10-20 miles of a major urban freeway somewhere in America) would normally be about $500 million to $2 billion... enough for a whopping 10-40 miles of "True HSR" track. The freeway will typically have at least 200,000 users every day. How many daily riders will 10-40 miles of "True HSR" track generate above and beyond the number who would have used the train anyway if it were 110mph? ..."

Your figures are suspect. The Big Dig may benefit a million people each day, but your figures have to include others than those actually using the freeway and network to add up to one million. Maybe the coffeeshop barrista at the next offramp able to sell one more cup of coffee per hour??? Anyway, the busiest freeways in the world are probably in California... and none have average daily traffic over 350k or so. Nothing in the Boston region comes close to LA or SF Bay Area.

A check of online info indicates that the Central Artery average daily traffic is 158k vehicles. That's actually down from the elevated structure that was there before.... having an ADT of 163k.

Secondly, TGV does have numbers that are comparable. No, they are not at one million a day. But at 45 million a years (2003), average daily trips... probably weekdays... is in the vicinity of 150k per day. If it was not in 2003, then I am certain it would be today.
bmfarley no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 5th, 2007, 05:12 AM   #307
Tri-ring
Expert
 
Tri-ring's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 459
Likes (Received): 7

Quote:
Originally Posted by bmfarley View Post
Your figures are suspect. The Big Dig may benefit a million people each day, but your figures have to include others than those actually using the freeway and network to add up to one million. Maybe the coffeeshop barrista at the next offramp able to sell one more cup of coffee per hour??? Anyway, the busiest freeways in the world are probably in California... and none have average daily traffic over 350k or so. Nothing in the Boston region comes close to LA or SF Bay Area.

A check of online info indicates that the Central Artery average daily traffic is 158k vehicles. That's actually down from the elevated structure that was there before.... having an ADT of 163k.

Secondly, TGV does have numbers that are comparable. No, they are not at one million a day. But at 45 million a years (2003), average daily trips... probably weekdays... is in the vicinity of 150k per day. If it was not in 2003, then I am certain it would be today.
As supplemental info., Tokaido Shinkansen's average daily ridership is 355K(F02) and yearly adds up to 130MM(F02) announced by JR Central.

http://jr-central.co.jp/eng.nsf/english/n-04-0408
__________________
banned for denial of war crimes in world war 2.
Tri-ring no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 5th, 2007, 02:36 PM   #308
elfabyanos
Dracuna Macoides
 
elfabyanos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brighton
Posts: 1,814
Likes (Received): 5

Bottom line is: HSR is profitable.

Investment on a sensible route is paid back and in the black within 10-20 years, taking the examples of France and Japan. Incremental construction is probably required for this outcome.
elfabyanos no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 5th, 2007, 02:46 PM   #309
elfabyanos
Dracuna Macoides
 
elfabyanos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brighton
Posts: 1,814
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tri-ring View Post
Can I shed some light to that subject, first of all, maglev can turn tighter curves due to magnetic induced propulsion positioning the cart within the guideway.

Thanks for the info. As I've mentioned before on other threads, much of the reason why conventional trains do not run tighter curves is not because of the physics involved in keeping the stresses on the track down to tolerable levels, but health and safety imposing maximum lateral acceleration that will be experienced by the passengers. Basically we don't want the passengers' coffee splatting against the window when the train hits a corner.

Even if there are slight gain to be made by maglev technology there is absolutely no chance a maglev line designed for 250mph wont need to be as straight or straighter than a conventional line designed for current hsr speeds of 200mph. The argument that maglev cornering abilities will reduce engineering and land requisition costs I believe is false.
elfabyanos no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 5th, 2007, 02:57 PM   #310
elfabyanos
Dracuna Macoides
 
elfabyanos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brighton
Posts: 1,814
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by pflo777 View Post
A train can super-elevate its tracks at a maximum of 6,5° (11,3 %) .
A transrapid maglev with 16° (28,7 %)
At cruising speed, the passenger doestn take notice of how much the train leans into the curve. But the effect is, that the maglev can make either tighter curves at the same speed than HSR or can drive through the same radii at higher speeds, with the same comfort for the passenger.
The problem with HSR is, that you cannot increase the cant angle, because in case of an emergency stop, the train would fall out of its rails.
This isn't correct. A train would not fall out of the rails until much higher cant than this whilst the train is stationary - obviously this depends on the particular design of train - but trains with under-slung motors would fare very well in this excercise. If the regulations state 6.5° , that means the maximum outward force on a curve at max speed (cant deficiency) is attained at this amount of lean, but the the same maximum amount of cant deficiency is acheived in the opposite direction (towards the inside of the curve) if the train were to stop on the curved, banked track. After all, if it's not safe to have hot drinks flying towards one window while the train is passing a banked curved section then it's not safe to have them falling towards the other window if the train came to a halt on that same section.
elfabyanos no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 5th, 2007, 03:22 PM   #311
Tri-ring
Expert
 
Tri-ring's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 459
Likes (Received): 7

Quote:
Originally Posted by elfabyanos View Post
Thanks for the info. As I've mentioned before on other threads, much of the reason why conventional trains do not run tighter curves is not because of the physics involved in keeping the stresses on the track down to tolerable levels, but health and safety imposing maximum lateral acceleration that will be experienced by the passengers. Basically we don't want the passengers' coffee splatting against the window when the train hits a corner.

Even if there are slight gain to be made by maglev technology there is absolutely no chance a maglev line designed for 250mph wont need to be as straight or straighter than a conventional line designed for current hsr speeds of 200mph. The argument that maglev cornering abilities will reduce engineering and land requisition costs I believe is false.
No that is where you are wrong since a train with a fixed axle being able to negotiate turns is the differencial within the size from bottom to the edge of a wheel. With centrifugal force applied, the rim of the wheel is force to the edge further, with too much force the train risks derailment. So HSR needs either a large radius at high speed or needs to slow down at small radius turns. Tracks always have an inherit speed limit within design and trains that are heavier lowers that speed limit due to physics and trains that have tilting mechanism can negotiate tighter curves by moving the center of gravity, heightening the limit but never the less it is not limitless.
With maglev centrifugal force is some what offset through magnetic positioning within the guide system but there is still a limit.
__________________
banned for denial of war crimes in world war 2.

Last edited by Tri-ring; December 5th, 2007 at 03:30 PM.
Tri-ring no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 5th, 2007, 07:14 PM   #312
33Hz
Registered User
 
33Hz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 436
Likes (Received): 47

If this were the case then the French 574km/h TGV would have wrecked the tracks or derailed. But it didn't.
33Hz no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 6th, 2007, 12:39 AM   #313
Tri-ring
Expert
 
Tri-ring's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 459
Likes (Received): 7

Quote:
Originally Posted by 33Hz View Post
If this were the case then the French 574km/h TGV would have wrecked the tracks or derailed. But it didn't.
That is because there was no turns within the test run.
__________________
banned for denial of war crimes in world war 2.
Tri-ring no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 6th, 2007, 12:50 AM   #314
xote
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,198
Likes (Received): 5

Why are people so hell bent on using a relatively novel strategy on such an important corridor?

Plus, building a HSR line would allow for intermediate services to be offered, by allowing the high speed train to veer off the dedicated line onto the regular line.

xote no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 6th, 2007, 03:22 AM   #315
33Hz
Registered User
 
33Hz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 436
Likes (Received): 47

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tri-ring View Post
That is because there was no turns within the test run.





Not exactly true.


The top picture was taken with the train at 338mph, the bottom 336mph. Does that look like very steep super-elevation to you?

Last edited by 33Hz; December 6th, 2007 at 03:40 AM.
33Hz no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 6th, 2007, 03:34 AM   #316
Tri-ring
Expert
 
Tri-ring's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 459
Likes (Received): 7

Quote:
Originally Posted by 33Hz View Post
This picture was taken with the train at 338mph. Does that look like very steep super-elevation to you?
Point taken but it doesn't mean it could clear the same point at over 500Km or if it was full with passangers adding extensive weight.
As you probably know weight is key component in centrifugal force.
Plus I hear the wheels were specially modified for this test run.
__________________
banned for denial of war crimes in world war 2.
Tri-ring no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 6th, 2007, 03:57 AM   #317
33Hz
Registered User
 
33Hz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 436
Likes (Received): 47

Actually it was loaded with passengers, technicians and measuring equipment on both decks. At this point *it is* doing over 500km/h.

The wheels were made bigger on the power car so as to reduce the necessary speed of the drive train and motors. You seem to be infering that doing so is somehow cheating.
33Hz no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 6th, 2007, 04:03 AM   #318
Tri-ring
Expert
 
Tri-ring's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 459
Likes (Received): 7

Quote:
Originally Posted by 33Hz View Post
Actually it was loaded with passengers, technicians and measuring equipment on both decks. At this point *it is* doing over 500km/h.

The wheels were made bigger on the power car so as to reduce the necessary speed of the drive train and motors. You seem to be infering that doing so is somehow cheating.

No it wasn't since I saw the footage film when the record happened. It was full of equipemnts but they were lighter than an average human.
The 500Km mark was not made on a curve either.
I'm not infering that they were cheating, I saying it is impossible to make tight curves at high speed and it becomes more difficult as weight becomes heavier and/or radius becomes smaller because of inherent limit within design of all rail/fixed axis wheels.

Fixed axis wheels do not make turns by steering because the distance between rails are fixed there by even trying to steer the axis will cause derailment.
Turns are negotiated by the differential of circumference within the inner and outer rim of the wheel, sliding the contact point between the rail and wheel from one side to the other makes it possible to turn curves.
A larger wheel can negotiate curve better because it can develop larger differentials within circumference of inner and outer rim.
__________________
banned for denial of war crimes in world war 2.

Last edited by Tri-ring; December 6th, 2007 at 04:20 AM. Reason: clarifing
Tri-ring no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 6th, 2007, 06:32 AM   #319
Xusein
 
Xusein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 26,172
Likes (Received): 10384

We need new railroads for any real HSR to take place in the Northeast Corridor.

A lot of the tracks, especially in New York and Connecticut are simply at the end of the ropes, and have no potential to be upgraded further, IMO. Problem is, land in that area is incredibly expensive and NIMBYs are huge...remember, this is one of the most expensive areas in the nation.

Unlike in other regions of the US, the NEC isn't used for freight, and is used mostly by Amtrak and existing commuter rail. I think, to get the plan actually on the ball, it would cost billions. And that's a word that is like ******* kryptonite for some of the scumbag politicians in this neck of the woods.

But, HSR is totally viable here...with the horrible air traffic here, I believe that if it's not doable in BosWash, it can't be done anywhere else in the US. It can be done, but it would take effort, money, and time.
Xusein no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 6th, 2007, 10:59 AM   #320
elfabyanos
Dracuna Macoides
 
elfabyanos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brighton
Posts: 1,814
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tri-ring View Post
No that is where you are wrong since a train with a fixed axle being able to negotiate turns is the differencial within the size from bottom to the edge of a wheel. With centrifugal force applied, the rim of the wheel is force to the edge further, with too much force the train risks derailment. So HSR needs either a large radius at high speed or needs to slow down at small radius turns. Tracks always have an inherit speed limit within design and trains that are heavier lowers that speed limit due to physics and trains that have tilting mechanism can negotiate tighter curves by moving the center of gravity, heightening the limit but never the less it is not limitless.
With maglev centrifugal force is some what offset through magnetic positioning within the guide system but there is still a limit.

No no no absolutely not. The APT, when in testing, was driven around a 40 mph corner at Dover at 90 mph, with the tilting mechamism locked in the wrong directin, to test it's stability, i.e. would it tip over. The engineers were not worried about the flange losing lateral traction with the railhead, just if it would tip over. It didn't, it was fine. The technical maximum of track and train are always much higher than limits imposed. That's mainly because the passengers don't wear seatbelts.
elfabyanos no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
amtrak, desertxpress, fly california, high speed rail, northeast corridor, texas triangle, united states

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 08:53 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