Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 2 votes

does a train use more engery than a plane as it goes faster ?


  • Please log in to reply
417 replies to this topic

#151 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,472 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 24 December 2012 - 12:07

Posted Image


This sort of reminds me of the Göppingen Gö 9, a test aircraft built for the Do 335 program to investigate the viability of an extension shaft driving a prop.

Posted Image

James McDonnell also like the pusher prop for his first aircraft design, the McDonnell Type 1

Advertisement

#152 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,472 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 24 December 2012 - 13:43

http://www.theage.co...1224-2bu8m.html

#153 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 842 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 25 December 2012 - 01:27

......I would ask, do the airlines pay for the FAA? NTSB? TSA? How many of the US airlines have been bailed out?.....
But I understand your thoughts. You do not want the government spending money on infrastructure. So, no more roads for you!...........


Wuzak-

Commercial US airlines help pay for the FAA, NTSB, TSA, etc through fees added to the ticket prices, income taxes paid by the airline, fuel taxes paid by the airline, etc. The US government has bailed out some failing airlines in the past, but all of those airlines also coincidentally had large numbers of union workers that stood to lose their jobs. However, there are no US airlines that receive the continuous, massive taxpayer subsidies that Amtrak does.

I have no fundamental issue with tax dollars going to fund transportation infrastructure projects, as long as the money is spent wisely and the projects make economic sense. In the US, all public road construction and maintenance is funded entirely by fuel taxes, excise taxes, toll fees, etc. In fact, much of the revenue generated from fuel taxes, vehicle fees, etc is siphoned-off to pay for other government spending.


#154 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 842 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 25 December 2012 - 01:46

.......For Aircraft it is better to Push, The Wright Brothers knew that!.....


Charles E Taylor-

In reality, there is no fundamental difference in how a propellor produces thrust, whether it is a "pusher" or "tractor" arrangement. When installed optimally, with the minimum local flow obstructions fore/aft, the tractor configuration is usually best. That's why modern turbofan engines have the fan stage (which produces 80% of the thrust) out front. The same is true for almost all modern turboprop aircraft designs. The only exception that comes to mind is the Piaggio Avanti:

Posted Image

Of course, I would have to agree that pusher prop aircraft designs usually look way sexier!

slider


#155 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,592 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 25 December 2012 - 11:45

Hull wash onto the proppeler is such a pain in water, from prop efficiency, through cavitation to shaft vibration. Someone with a submerged background would always chose a tractor prop if the choice is availiable

Edited by saudoso, 25 December 2012 - 11:46.


#156 h4887

h4887
  • Member

  • 875 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 25 December 2012 - 13:47

What we need is an autogyro. I'm sure that most of the worlds problems could be solved with an autogyro.


Cue 24gerrard. Oops,I forgot! :rolleyes:

#157 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,135 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 26 December 2012 - 11:14

Here in the US, it would take 70 hours and cost over $400 to travel from LA to NY on Amtrak. The same trip by commercial jet would take around 6 hours and cost about $350.

Obviously the investment strategy of a society makes a difference. If you invest into a high speed train system for a 4,000 km trip like LA to NYC you can do it in 10 hours city centre to city centre. If you add the city centre to airport times and the in processing you get very similar times for air travel. The fact that 400 kph rail links were never seriously considered for investment in the US shows that energy efficiency was never high on the agenda of any federal US administration or the voters who put it into office.


#158 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 850 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 26 December 2012 - 12:05

Hull wash onto the proppeler is such a pain in water, from prop efficiency, through cavitation to shaft vibration. Someone with a submerged background would always chose a tractor prop if the choice is availiable


I am sure I remember reading about experimental "speedboats" in the 1930's that had a bow or tractor propeller. Can't find any mention of such an arrangement on the internet though.

#159 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,472 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 26 December 2012 - 13:14

But commercial jet is far faster over long distances, and is currently statistically safer than rail travel.


Yes, jets are faster over longer distances. But usually the suggestion is for short to medium trips - up to around 500-600 miles. At those distances high speed rail is time competitive with airlines.


Here in the US, it would take 70 hours and cost over $400 to travel from LA to NY on Amtrak. The same trip by commercial jet would take around 6 hours and cost about $350.


The wonderful thing about the web is that such things can be checked easily.

Amtrak will get you from Union Station LA to Penn Station NYC in around 70h, yes, but for $218 for a coach seat.

A quick check on Orbitz has the cheapest price at $134 for an airline seat. Surprised how cheap it was, since one of my flights in my recent US trip was from Houston to Las Vegas, a flight of about 3 1/2 hours, and that cost over $300.

Surprised to find that the cheapest flights aren't wide bodied airliners, but not surprised they had stop overs.


Regarding the question posed by the OP, assuming the same speeds, I would guess that a modern commercial jet would be more efficient than a diesel-electric train. The jet flies a more direct route than the train, and can even take advantage of prevailing high-speed wind currents in the atmosphere. Plus the jet is far lighter than the train.


As has been pointed out, the train doesn't have to climb to altitude and keep itself there.




Advertisement

#160 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,472 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 26 December 2012 - 13:22

Obviously the investment strategy of a society makes a difference. If you invest into a high speed train system for a 4,000 km trip like LA to NYC you can do it in 10 hours city centre to city centre. If you add the city centre to airport times and the in processing you get very similar times for air travel. The fact that 400 kph rail links were never seriously considered for investment in the US shows that energy efficiency was never high on the agenda of any federal US administration or the voters who put it into office.


WB, currently the only train capable of sustained 400kmh+ speeds is the mag-lev in China. The problem with the mag-lev is that it requires its own unique track system, which is more expensive to build and, I dare say, operate.

The attractiveness for high speed trains that are currently capable of 300-350km/h is that they use standard gauge rail, and thus can use existing train stations.

A train from LA to NYC would have to go through many stops on the way, which would delay the train, plus its route would have to take account of the terrain.

A high speed train in areas such as the north east corridor would make sense - shorter trips make for times competitive with airlines, a large population is there to be serviced, and the removal of some of the shorter flights will make the airspace less busy and reduce the delays at the airports.

#161 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,472 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 26 December 2012 - 13:28

Hull wash onto the proppeler is such a pain in water, from prop efficiency, through cavitation to shaft vibration. Someone with a submerged background would always chose a tractor prop if the choice is availiable



I am sure I remember reading about experimental "speedboats" in the 1930's that had a bow or tractor propeller. Can't find any mention of such an arrangement on the internet though.



If a tractor prop was better for water craft, why is it not more common?

In aircraft the theory is that the propwash causes drag over the flying surfaces and the body. I would imagine that tractor props for water craft would have a similar effect. In high speed craft I also expect that the bow rising and the boat getting up on the plane may cause problems for forward mounted engines.

In aircraft the tractor layout is prevalent mostly because it is easier to design - things like the exhausts aren't an issue, but they could be for a pusher arrangement.

#162 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,135 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 27 December 2012 - 01:45

Dedicated high speed railway links can reach over 400 kph. The Japanese have tested that. If you build a purpose made high speed track between LA and NYC the speed would be realistic for a rail service. Maglevs exceed 500 kph but the additional speed isn't worth the problems you have with compatibility with existing track width and technology. If you look at Japan you can also see that the long distance trains do not stop. For an LA to NYC train it would not make sense to stop at all. You want to be as competitive as possible with a non stop flight and by not stopping and going max speed you can do it and with considerable lower energy expenditure.

#163 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,194 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 27 December 2012 - 02:52

I am sure I remember reading about experimental "speedboats" in the 1930's that had a bow or tractor propeller. Can't find any mention of such an arrangement on the internet though.

Ship propulsion pods usually have the propeller at the front.

#164 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 842 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 27 December 2012 - 02:59

WB-

Here in California, where I live, the state government has been trying to get voters to fund a HSR route from LA to SF. The latest projected costs for this 380 mile HSR route are over $150billion, or more than $380million/mile. An LA-NY HSR route would be over 7 times as long, and would likely cost over $1trillion. So I can't see how this particular approach would ever make sense economically. The US commercial airlines already provide a cost effective, safe and timely mode of transport for those traveling from LA-NY. Spending $1trillion+ of US taxpayer money to build an LA-NY HSR route would simply be a case of solving a problem that doesn't exist.

#165 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,472 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 27 December 2012 - 07:17

Dedicated high speed railway links can reach over 400 kph. The Japanese have tested that. If you build a purpose made high speed track between LA and NYC the speed would be realistic for a rail service.


The record for a train on conventional rails is held by a specially prepared TGV at 574.8km/h. Most TGV routes operate at 300-320km/h, however. TGV runs on a dedicated high speed rail network.

Testing isn't the same as in service. I doubt that 400km/h is a relaistic goal fo rconventional rail in the near term.


Maglevs exceed 500 kph but the additional speed isn't worth the problems you have with compatibility with existing track width and technology.


China's mag-lev tops out at about 430km/h. The record for a mag-lev is 581km/h.

And it is correct, the additional costs of mag-lev don't make it particulalry attractive at this point.


If you look at Japan you can also see that the long distance trains do not stop.


When you say "long distance", you do realise that the longest route in the Japanese system is 675km? A train from LA to NYC would probably exceed 4000km.


For an LA to NYC train it would not make sense to stop at all. You want to be as competitive as possible with a non stop flight and by not stopping and going max speed you can do it and with considerable lower energy expenditure.


I disagree. A high speed train that spans the continental US will broaden its appeal if it were to stop in major centres, providing not only a link between LA and NYC but between them and the intermediate stops, and between the intermediate stops themselves.

#166 Kalmake

Kalmake
  • Member

  • 455 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 27 December 2012 - 07:41

I'm not very familiar with the geography of your country, but per mile costs might be a lot less for LA-NY. Across central USA there would be less earthwork, buying property and relocating things.

But yeah, it's dear. There needs to be political reasons like reducing (foreign) oil dependency to justify it.

Meanwhile in China world's longest high-speed railway line completes.

#167 Dmitriy_Guller

Dmitriy_Guller
  • Member

  • 4,032 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 27 December 2012 - 08:23

I'm not very familiar with the geography of your country, but per mile costs might be a lot less for LA-NY. Across central USA there would be less earthwork, buying property and relocating things.

Not sure about earthwork. The land isn't exactly level between SF and LA, but at least you don't have to burrow through hundreds of miles of Rocky Mountains (assuming that existing rail links won't do for high speed service).

#168 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,472 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 27 December 2012 - 09:15

Not sure about earthwork. The land isn't exactly level between SF and LA, but at least you don't have to burrow through hundreds of miles of Rocky Mountains (assuming that existing rail links won't do for high speed service).


There are two routes from California to Chicago at the moment. The original trans-continental railway goes from San Francisco, through Sacramento, over the Sierra Nevadas, through Nevada and Utah, runs alongside the Colorado river for a period and also up into the Rockies, then onto the plains up to Chicago. Certainly parts of the trip are unsuitable for high speed operation - the switchbacks in the Sierra Nevadas, for one, would preclude high speeds.

The other is the Southwest Chief, which runs from LA to Chicago through California, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Iowa and Illinois. These seems to be a flatter route with less mountains with which to contend.

The third option is to catch the Coast Starlight from LA or San Francisco up to Seattle, then the Empire Builder, which goes from Seattle to Chicago. That seems to spend a lot of times on plains and prairies.

#169 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,472 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 27 December 2012 - 09:34

WB-

Here in California, where I live, the state government has been trying to get voters to fund a HSR route from LA to SF. The latest projected costs for this 380 mile HSR route are over $150billion, or more than $380million/mile. An LA-NY HSR route would be over 7 times as long, and would likely cost over $1trillion. So I can't see how this particular approach would ever make sense economically. The US commercial airlines already provide a cost effective, safe and timely mode of transport for those traveling from LA-NY. Spending $1trillion+ of US taxpayer money to build an LA-NY HSR route would simply be a case of solving a problem that doesn't exist.


$380m/mile seems well over the odds to me. A 2011 study on the proposed Melbourne-Canberra-Sydney-Melbourne route estimated (90% confidence, most expensive route) a total cost of Au$108.6bn for a total route length of 1663km, an average $65m/km = $105m/mile. The most expensive section is the short section between Newcastle to Sydney, a distance of 120km and a cost of Au$17.9bn, an average of just under $150m/km = $240m/mile.

I wonder if the total cost is that which links San Diego, Los Angeles and San Francisco, as well as others? The complete network, in other words.

#170 Joe Bosworth

Joe Bosworth
  • Member

  • 517 posts
  • Joined: May 05

Posted 28 December 2012 - 03:46

I sometimes get a little concerned by some of the capital costs that get quoted for projects. A small reality check is often called for.

My home town, Perth, Western Australia is the capital city of a region with a history of very high comparative cost capital projects. In December 2007 we inaugerated a new suburban 72 km rail line. It cost A$20 million per km. The A$ is close enough to parity with the US$ that we can ignore exchange rate differences.

The $20m per km bought twin rail line, 11 Stations, a complete electrical system including two sub-stations, rail signalling and communications, 31 sets of rolling stock, 14 bridges, 2 underpasses and twin tunnels under th city central tall buildings.

Admittedly the countryside is flat but one can expect longer track lengths for cross country runs as well as fewer staions with attendant infrastructure to partially offset the the costs of leveliing the runs trrough hilly countryside. The cost affect of hills is not as great as some might think as the TGV and similar in Europe copes with 4 percent grades without difficulty. (A 4% grade is getting pretty steep in laymens terms.)

Four lane highways seem to get built for about $10 million per km which keeps things in some further perspective.

Regards

Joe

#171 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,135 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 28 December 2012 - 04:49

if you have a transcontinental network it makes no sense to have the long distance trains stop. You rather have additional trains to service mid range and short range destinations. That way the investment gets better used. Obviously one trans continental service would not justify the investment. But many of them building a network would probably do it.

#172 johnny yuma

johnny yuma
  • Member

  • 928 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 28 December 2012 - 12:26

A lot of "business dudes" do live in the city.

Tell me, does that hour magically disappear if they have to get to the plane?

If they are on the south side of Melbourne that means extra travelling to get to the airport. But for those in the north of Melbourne the proposal is that there will be a train station near the airport, so it won't cost them any extra time getting to the train compared to getting to the airport.

The business dudes are subsidising the cheap ticket buyers,if they go HSR ,airlines jack up prices or go bust,HSR is overstretched,new problem


The train stations are already there - in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne, and they are already serviced by interstate trains. There is no major infrastructure there. HSTs like the TGV use standard gauge rail, so they will operate on the existing lines in and out of the city.

The estimates that have been put forward do include capital works for the stations in other areas where there may not be the facilities now.

The devil is in the detail in how HSR passenger numbers of the order of say 50% of current Sydney-Melbourne daily Domestic passengers could be whisked out of Central Station through our clogged peak hour train network without
huge infrastructure bills before we even get outside the Metropolitan areas and start building the high-tech part of the line.



Being "negative and boring" is not the same as being practical.

HST systems have shown to be practical by numerous studies. As Joe said the only reason we don't have it is we haven't had the political will.

Common sense tells us that Sydney airport is already running at near capacity. It has no space for upgrades, and has serious operating restrictions. That means a new airport is required. The NSW government has been trying for that one for years. The cost of a new airport would be approximately 1/5-1/4 of the proposed HSR network.

That would be less money well spent.




I have not done any engineering here. Others have already done the preliminary work - several times.

I have a friend who owns a small island near Telegraph Point north of Port Macquarie.The RMS (RTA) have done the route investigation for the Pacific Highway dual carriageway which has now almost reached this point,
but only a few weeks back the engineering was being done (again) and it was discovered the island will need three times the money to support it's one major pylon.Surprises are guaranteed,and rarely do they make
the work cheaper ! AND WE HAVE NEVER BUILT A 125 MPH RAILWAY IN AUSTRALIA,LET ALONE A 200MPH JOBBIE.




The state governments do receive GST from the federal government, but they are not required to spend it in any certain way. They have their health budgets, education budgets and infrastructure budgets - which includes road and rail.

The Federal government also assists the state governments for projects such as road building by providing funds other than the GST for that specific purpose.




I can't say as to whether the "black economy" is any bigger or smaller than it used to be. But, ironically, that is one of the reasons used to justify the GST.....yes that is amusing !!

The federal budget is more susceptible to swings in the economy than any upturn in the "black economy". The down turn in the mining sector is a case in point.




Who knows, the HST may be part of a future stimulus package. FWIW, the 2008/9 stimulus was AU$40bn, or about 40% of the proposed HST works.




Lets recall that the Sydney-Melbourne-Brisbane air system already deals with approximately 10m passengers per year just on those routes. A HST network must be part of Australia's future transport needs on the east coast. If you get the HST operating you will probably reduce the demand on the interstate freeways. Running passengers on the HST will free up the rest of the rail network and, possibly, allow the freight system to operate more efficiently and cost effectively. If that is the case then more freight can be taken by rail and there won't be as many big trucks on the roads, meaning less need for road upgrades.


Unfortunately we have very few passenger trains running in rural areas so there won't be much freeing-up going on by their demise.The thing is anyhow the HST won't make many stops at all or it destroys it's advantages,so it will not impact much on any existing interstate rail except the XPTs between Syd/Melb/Bris,but then the smaller cities and towns will still need an old-school train to serve them even if a HSR is built as envisaged.


#173 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,472 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 28 December 2012 - 13:20

The business dudes are subsidising the cheap ticket buyers,if they go HSR ,airlines jack up prices or go bust,HSR is overstretched,new problem


The "business dudes" subsidising cheap ticket buyers is exactly what happens in the airlines. In fact, anyone who doesn't get a cheap ticket is subsidising the cheap ticket deals.

Airlines may have to jack up their fares if they lose half their custom. Then again, they will most likely drop half their flights. Which means less delays for all airport users.

"HSR is overstretched"- what does that mean?



The devil is in the detail in how HSR passenger numbers of the order of say 50% of current Sydney-Melbourne daily Domestic passengers could be whisked out of Central Station through our clogged peak hour train network without
huge infrastructure bills before we even get outside the Metropolitan areas and start building the high-tech part of the line.


I wonder how the current interstate trains manage to avoid the "clogged peak hour train network"....



That would be less money well spent.


Less money, certainly, but well spent? That's debatable.

First you have the problem that nobody in Sydney wants a second airport in their backyard. Because of that the airport will likely have to be further out. A second airport will not relieve the airspace congestion around Sydney. And a second airport will do nothing to lower greenhouse gas emissions (if that is something you care about). In the next 30-40 years passenger traffic between Melbourne and Sydney is forecast to double.



I have a friend who owns a small island near Telegraph Point north of Port Macquarie.The RMS (RTA) have done the route investigation for the Pacific Highway dual carriageway which has now almost reached this point,
but only a few weeks back the engineering was being done (again) and it was discovered the island will need three times the money to support it's one major pylon.Surprises are guaranteed,and rarely do they make the work cheaper !


And how many of these surprises have occurred on the Pacific Highway? Of what percentage of the total budget does this "surprise" comprise?

Again, much of the route will be on existing corridors. Shouldn't be too many surprises there.


AND WE HAVE NEVER BUILT A 125 MPH RAILWAY IN AUSTRALIA,LET ALONE A 200MPH JOBBIE.


That is a poor argument, simply for the fact that the technology is mature - 200mph trains have around in France for 30 years. 125mph trains have been around in Japan for nearly 50 years. The technology and expertise to do this can be acquired.

At one point Australians had never built a road. But that didn't stop them doing it.



Unfortunately we have very few passenger trains running in rural areas so there won't be much freeing-up going on by their demise.


Most freight trains run between major centres. Taking passenger trains off those routes will certainly free up those routes.


The thing is anyhow the HST won't make many stops at all or it destroys it's advantages,so it will not impact much on any existing interstate rail except the XPTs between Syd/Melb/Bris,but then the smaller cities and towns will still need an old-school train to serve them even if a HSR is built as envisaged.


Is there any other interstate train service other than the XPTs (CountryLink)?

One report I have proposes a maximum of 21 stations for the network - 8 Brisbane to Newcastle (708km), 4 Newcastle to Sydney (120km), 5 Sydney to Canberra (290km) and 4 Canberra to Melbourne (552km).

While the smaller towns won't have direct access to the high speed train, it won't be much different to the current situation. Much of NSW, Victoria and Queensland are accessible by conventional or XPT trains now.

And there would possibly be express services, which only stop at major stations - Melbourne-Canberra-Sydney-Newcastle-Brisbane, for example.

Edited by Wuzak, 29 December 2012 - 00:48.


#174 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,472 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 29 December 2012 - 00:46

I found a report on the Proposed Northeast Corridor High Speed Train

This gives some interesting insights.

Amtrak's NEC services have a ridership of in excess of 11m per year.
Amtrak's share of air/rail travellers between Boston and New York is approximately 50%.
Some of Amtrak's services are approaching or at capacity, requiring upgrades to tracks, etc. These upgrades would also be at capacity by 2030.
By far the majority of intercity travel in the NEC is still by car.
The Acela Express is currently time competitive with airlines for the Washington-NYC service, downtown to downtown (airline time including travel to airport, security, etc)
The Acela Express is only slightly slower, downtown to downtown, than air services Boston to NYC.


The government is unlikely to get money back from any involved corporation. You may recall that, as one example, GE paid no taxes on a profit of 14 billion last year. None. In addition, WTO rules require that countries allow foreign bids on government projects so there is very little guarantee that there's any revenue aside from income tax collected from workers. Government broke, corporations rich.


From the report:

Federal regulations mandate that such materials and goods used in the project must be produced in the U.S., and domestic and international companies would likely develop U.S.-based plants to meet these requirements in the future.




#175 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 842 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 29 December 2012 - 02:35

$380m/mile seems well over the odds to me. A 2011 study on the proposed Melbourne-Canberra-Sydney-Melbourne route estimated (90% confidence, most expensive route) a total cost of Au$108.6bn for a total route length of 1663km, an average $65m/km = $105m/mile. The most expensive section is the short section between Newcastle to Sydney, a distance of 120km and a cost of Au$17.9bn, an average of just under $150m/km = $240m/mile.

I wonder if the total cost is that which links San Diego, Los Angeles and San Francisco, as well as others? The complete network, in other words.


Wuzak-

The proposed LA-SF HSR route would use the existing rail corridor through the rural San Joaquin Valley, which has very little elevation change over most of its length.

You mentioned that a 2011 "study" projected costs for a proposed Melbourne-Sydney HSR route at about $105m/mile. But the problem is that the costs projected by these "studies" are usually way below what the actual costs end up being. A 2008 study by the state of California put the construction costs for a SD-SF HSR route at $38B. However, an updated 2012 study by the state of California now puts construction costs between $98B and $117B for a shorter LA-SF route. The true cost for the system would easily be in excess of $150B once all of the construction loans/bonds have been paid off.

Lastly, here's a bit of irony regarding this whole rail vs aircraft debate. A few years back, I worked for Boeing on their 737NG commercial aircraft program in Renton, WA. The aircraft's fuselage structures were manufactured in Wichita, KS and shipped by rail to Renton, WA.

Posted Image

slider




#176 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,472 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 29 December 2012 - 06:11

I just did a quick search for costs for the French network.

The original LGV Sud-Est line cost €8.6m/km ~ US$18.2m/mile.

More modern ones seem to be around €13m/km-€17m/km ~ US$28m/mile-US$36m/mile.

The High Speed 1 built in the UK cost £5.8bn for 108km = £53.7m/km ~ US$140m/mile.

The cost for HS1 includes some viaducts and tunnels.

Why would the US construction costs be 10 times that of France, and 3 times that of the UK?


#177 johnny yuma

johnny yuma
  • Member

  • 928 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 29 December 2012 - 08:23

Wuzak. Bear with me, I bear no malice this is a good debate.

First,a second airport in southwest Sydney WOULD relieve air traffic congestion at Mascot.Whether that should be done is obviously another debate.

Secondly,my anecdotal on the "surprises" in final engineering/construction means to say, in boring,tedious detail ,that even though in the case of the mandated,funded,designed
route of a divided carriageway of 110km/h limit from Sydney to Gold Coast,the actual route and cost are not known with much accuracy at sign-up.OK .Good thing about a road,
you can start,build it piecemeal,take as long as you like,it gets used.Not ideal,but seems to be best we can do in Australia.Can't see how this modus operandi could achieve a HSR
though.So it has to be designed,funded and built in the quickest manner possible.And in an honest and competent manner.The fact that a portion of the voters and politicians
think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread is NOT a valid point in it's favour. They reveal their lack of knowledge about an enterprise they so passionately call for when they
say the existing corridor can mainly be used.

Third,you miss my point regards "never" constructing a 125 or 200 mph rail line...I am saying "in Australia" we have not done it !! Note bigleaguesliders images of airliner bodies
being transported by train.Typical of what the USA can still do,and what we probably could do in Australia....if we had to.Sadly if we wanted a HST we would import every bit
of rolling stock,plus all the other gear we no longer make here.What underpins Australia's desire to have a HST ? What do we produce which the rest of the world is begging for?
Obviously minerals,food,possibly education...aah ...and some stuff those business dudes who fill the full price seats on the Sydney_Melbourne flights might like to tell us about?
We can't really fund hundred billion dollar projects in Australia by taxation on us taking in each others' washing,or teaching each others' kids,or running the best restaurant in town...
...especially if the best restaurant in town employs people who pay no tax because the boss likes it that way...he wants to attract those business dudes who just flew in on the
company payroll....hmmmm.

#178 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,472 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 29 December 2012 - 10:06

First,a second airport in southwest Sydney WOULD relieve air traffic congestion at Mascot.Whether that should be done is obviously another debate.


So, if the passenger traffic doubles in the next 30-40 years, as predicted, and Sydney has 2 airports that would leave us in much the same position as now.


Secondly,my anecdotal on the "surprises" in final engineering/construction means to say, in boring,tedious detail ,that even though in the case of the mandated,funded,designed route of a divided carriageway of 110km/h limit from Sydney to Gold Coast,the actual route and cost are not known with much accuracy at sign-up.OK .Good thing about a road, you can start,build it piecemeal,take as long as you like,it gets used.Not ideal,but seems to be best we can do in Australia.Can't see how this modus operandi could achieve a HSR though.So it has to be designed,funded and built in the quickest manner possible.And in an honest and competent manner.The fact that a portion of the voters and politicians think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread is NOT a valid point in it's favour. They reveal their lack of knowledge about an enterprise they so passionately call for when they say the existing corridor can mainly be used.


Rail can very much be built in stages. For instance, proposals have stage 1 being from Sydney to Canberra, stage 2 extends that down to Melbourne, and so on. The rail could be built quickly, but doesn't have to be.

Not sure if it is "the best we can do in Australia", or a reflection of the need to use the resources building and maintaining other roads. And, no doubt, it reflects on the governments' will.


Third,you miss my point regards "never" constructing a 125 or 200 mph rail line...I am saying "in Australia" we have not done it !!


I didn't miss it - I just don't consider it being that much of an issue. The French did it, having never done it before. The Japanese did it, having never done before.



Note bigleaguesliders images of airliner bodies being transported by train.Typical of what the USA can still do,and what we probably could do in Australia....if we had to.


What, transporting things by rail? That happens every day in Australia.

Making things - we still build cars, there is an aerospace industry (mainly building components). So, what point are you trying to make?



Sadly if we wanted a HST we would import every bit of rolling stock,plus all the other gear we no longer make here.


Not necessarily so.
Downer Rail
UGL Rail
Bradken
Bombadier

All make rolling stock for the Australian market.

Also, Alstom has a presence in Australia, though not in the manufacture of rolling stock. But they are in heavy engineering, and are a major player in rolling stock worldwide.

Investment in manufacturing in Australia has fallen a lot in the past decade or two. Perhaps a project such as a high speed train could be used to revitalise the sector.


What underpins Australia's desire to have a HST ?


Clearly it for a safe, sustainable, efficient and scalable method of transporting large numbers of passengers.



What do we produce which the rest of the world is begging for?
Obviously minerals,food,possibly education...aah ...and some stuff those business dudes who fill the full price seats on the Sydney_Melbourne flights might like to tell us about?


Um...what?

What does our export markets have to do with anything? High speed rail is mainly about transporting people, not goods.



We can't really fund hundred billion dollar projects in Australia by taxation on us taking in each others' washing,or teaching each others' kids,or running the best restaurant in town...


The high speed rail network development in France is a joint partnership between private enterprise and government. Clearly that is the preferred method here.

Perhaps we can leverage the superannuation industry - after all, that was the idea of superannuation - to invest help build infrastructure projects in Australia. Instead they have basically invested in the markets and lost (in real terms) everybody money.



...especially if the best restaurant in town employs people who pay no tax because the boss likes it that way...he wants to attract those business dudes who just flew in on the company payroll....hmmmm.


Um...what????

Edited by Wuzak, 29 December 2012 - 10:07.


#179 J. Edlund

J. Edlund
  • Member

  • 1,295 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 29 December 2012 - 22:46

The record for a train on conventional rails is held by a specially prepared TGV at 574.8km/h. Most TGV routes operate at 300-320km/h, however. TGV runs on a dedicated high speed rail network.

Testing isn't the same as in service. I doubt that 400km/h is a relaistic goal fo rconventional rail in the near term.


The fastest train you can currently order is Bombardiers Zefiro 380 which is designed for a top speed in commercial service of 380 km/h, so 400 km/h is certainly not far off. But a higher top speed doesn't necessarily mean a faster travel time, that depends on the track. A train built for a top speed as high as 380 km/h will have a slightly slower acceleration than a train built for a lower speed and this can make the faster train slower on certain tracks. I think the Zefiro 380 was designed with the Chinese long distance high speed rail network in mind, where the train can spend long periods of time at maximum speed without slowing down.

Advertisement

#180 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 842 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 31 December 2012 - 01:41

......Why would the US construction costs be 10 times that of France, and 3 times that of the UK?......


Wuzak- I can't give you an explanation for why the projected costs of HSR in the US are so high. All I can do is go by sources such as the state of California's own published data. Of course, a cynic might point out that in the US it's common that some of the massive amounts of taxpayer money provided for these public infrastructure projects does not always end up paying for the project. These projects are often managed by state governments, and the state governments often siphon off part of the funding for spending unrelated to the project. There is also the chronic problem of political cronyism, where politicians hand out overpriced contracts for questionable services, to their large campaign contributors.

Maybe an approach of competitive bidding and firm, fixed-price contracts would resolve most of the problem.


#181 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,472 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 31 December 2012 - 04:23

Hey slider,

I came upon some articles about high speed rail in the US.

One describes a line in Florida - between Tampa and Orlando. A journey that takes less than an hour and a half by car, with cities at each end with poor public transport systems. The high speed rail will cut about a half hour off the trip, but does not connect to Tampa airport or downtown Orlando.

The lack of a decent public transport system, especially a light rail system, I see now as an issue that would restrict ridership on the proposed California system.

The article has a report on Where High Speed Rail Works Best, which predictably has a lot of the north east city pairs as among the most suitable for HSR.

LA-San Francisco ranks as 5th.

Wikipedia's map of potential HSR routes shows two systems in Texas - one from San Antonio-Austin-Dallas-Oklahoma City-Tulsa and Dallas-Texarcana-Little Rock and the other from Houston-New Orleans-Mobile. Curiously it doesn't show a link from Dallas to Houston, which ranks 10 on the most suitable list. (Austin-Dallas is listed #45.)

And it seems the most suitable and most in need region was largely excluded from receiving the stimulus funds - ie the north east.

#182 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,472 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 31 December 2012 - 05:50

http://www.america20...ps/hsr-phasing/

#183 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,194 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 31 December 2012 - 08:25

A 2011 study on the proposed Melbourne-Canberra-Sydney-Melbourne route estimated a total cost of Au$108.6bn . . . . The most expensive section is the short section between Newcastle to Sydney . . . .

Of course Newcastle is North of Sydney so not on the Melbourne Sydney route. Did you mean somewhere else?

#184 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,472 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 31 December 2012 - 10:38

Of course Newcastle is North of Sydney so not on the Melbourne Sydney route. Did you mean somewhere else?


It was meant to be the Melbourne-Canberra-Sydney-Brisbane route (not a circular route). But Newcastle is part of the proposed network.

#185 Duc-Man

Duc-Man
  • Member

  • 1,068 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 31 December 2012 - 14:00

Just some thoughts from my side.
If you're comparing different ways to travel you have also to compare where the energy that is used comes from.

The power for high speed trains will come frome these sources:
Windparks are not a nice view and very unreliable on their power output.
Solar parks: see above.
Nuclear power plants:CO2 neutral but what to do with the waste?
Power plant burning oil/coal/gas are still producing massive amount of CO2.
Anything else is still 'to future' to be widely used.

Aircrafts burn petrol.

If you look at the CO2 footprint...that depends how the electricitc for the trains is produced.
By the way: a normal IC engine car has a better CO2 footprint than a compareable EV (considering the electricity production).

Something about the cost of infrastructure:
The new airport in Berlin will cost over 4.3 billion Euro.
Any new stretch of a high speed railroad system will cost way more but it is way bigger and is IMHO cheaper to run on the long term.

2) Clearly trains are better than planes over short distances but thy have their own problems of speed versus service. As an example the new UK line will only have stops at London and Birmingham 100 miles away. Most passengers do not want to go from the middle of London to the middle of Birmingham but to and from intermediate points. If you want to avoid extra journeys to the two stops you must add stations but as soon as you do that the speed falls very quickly due to slowing, standing and accelerating.


If you take a flight from A to B you can't really get of anywhere inbetween either.
And you also have to book your flight in advance.

Use of energy: I watched a documentary about the SR-71 Blackbird. It was mentioned that the plane starts with full (!) tanks and refills as soon as it reaches 30k ft. Over 30 tons of fuel gone just for the take off. :eek: Correct me if I'm wrong on this.

Passenger vs freight:
With trains there is a seperation between the two while aircrafts can carry a certain amount of freight as well.

#186 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,044 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 31 December 2012 - 14:55

"The SR-71's designers traded takeoff performance for better high-speed, high-altitude performance, necessitating takeoff with less-than-full fuel tanks from even the longest runways. Once airborne, the Blackbird would accelerate to supersonic speed using afterburners to facilitate structural heating and expansion. The magnitude of temperature changes experienced by the SR-71, from parked to its maximum speed, resulted in significant expansion of its structural parts in cruise flight. To allow for the expansion, the Blackbird's parts had to fit loosely when cold, so loosely, in fact, that the Blackbird constantly leaked fuel before heating expanded the airframe enough to seal its fuel tanks."

Continue with the train talk.

#187 J. Edlund

J. Edlund
  • Member

  • 1,295 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 01 January 2013 - 19:35

If you look at the CO2 footprint...that depends how the electricitc for the trains is produced.
By the way: a normal IC engine car has a better CO2 footprint than a compareable EV (considering the electricity production).


Only hybrids and diesels offer comparable CO2 emissions as electric vehicles if we assume the emissions from electricity production to be average. With coal fired power plants even regular cars can be comparable, but if the electricity is produced by wind, hydro or nuclear the CO2 emissions can be nearly zero (in practice a few to a few ten grams per kWh electricity).

But if we compare trains with electric vehicles the former have an advantage since they don't need batteries. Trains are also more energy efficient than planes, while electric cars still need about as much energy as regular cars. The only type of transportation that offer an energy efficiency comparable to trains is large ships. An added advantage of trains is the reduced oil dependence.

Passenger vs freight:
With trains there is a seperation between the two while aircrafts can carry a certain amount of freight as well.


Passenger trains can carry freight too, but it is usually better to carry freight on separate trains much like separate cargo planes are often used for freight.

For freight you have several options with trains. You can use a dedicated track suitable for heavy but low speed freight trains. You can use lighter and faster freight trains and run these on the same tracks as passenger trains. You can operate freight trains 24/7 or at night were there are few passenger trains and thus track capacity available. Each option will come with advantages and disadvantages.

#188 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,472 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 01 January 2013 - 20:12

Passenger trains can carry freight too, but it is usually better to carry freight on separate trains much like separate cargo planes are often used for freight.

For freight you have several options with trains. You can use a dedicated track suitable for heavy but low speed freight trains. You can use lighter and faster freight trains and run these on the same tracks as passenger trains. You can operate freight trains 24/7 or at night were there are few passenger trains and thus track capacity available. Each option will come with advantages and disadvantages.



Apparently cross country trains in the US used to carry mail as well as passengers. When the US postal service switched to using trucks the profitability of trains was much reduced.

#189 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,498 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 01 January 2013 - 20:47

One of the (many) things I lusted after as a small boy was a Hornby 'OO' Mail Carriage set, based on a working Royal Mail system. Mail bags were hung out of the carriage and collected at high speed by a 'bag catcher'. Mail delivered, no break in the train's speed. Brilliant.

#190 h4887

h4887
  • Member

  • 875 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 02 January 2013 - 20:38

I had one - great fun! :up:

#191 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,498 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 02 January 2013 - 21:09

Lucky you! I wonder if a similar system could be used on high-speed trains for passengers that want to make intermediate stops. Perhaps the engineers at Alton Towers could devise a method that was a) effective, b) fun and c) didnt kill anyone.

#192 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 842 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 03 January 2013 - 02:57

..........Trains are also more energy efficient than planes, while electric cars still need about as much energy as regular cars. The only type of transportation that offer an energy efficiency comparable to trains is large ships.............. Each option will come with advantages and disadvantages.


J.Edlund-

Large ships with recip IC engines are more efficient than diesel-electric trains, but are also slower. And diesel-electric trains are more efficient than aircraft, but are also slower. The trade-off is speed versus fuel consumption.

Of course, we have not considered diesel-electric trains versus large airships. It may be that a large, commercial heavier-than-air cargo transport might be more energy efficient than a conventional freight train, while traveling at approximately the same speeds.

Posted Image


#193 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,472 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 03 January 2013 - 09:14

J.Edlund-

Large ships with recip IC engines are more efficient than diesel-electric trains, but are also slower. And diesel-electric trains are more efficient than aircraft, but are also slower. The trade-off is speed versus fuel consumption.

Of course, we have not considered diesel-electric trains versus large airships. It may be that a large, commercial heavier-than-air cargo transport might be more energy efficient than a conventional freight train, while traveling at approximately the same speeds.

Posted Image


You seem very determined to find alternatives to trains....

The biggest freight trains haul as much as 10,000t. That is approximately 17 fully laden Airbus A380s.

#194 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,498 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 03 January 2013 - 10:18

You seem very determined to find alternatives to trains....

Submarines, anyone?

#195 Duc-Man

Duc-Man
  • Member

  • 1,068 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 03 January 2013 - 11:09

Submarines, anyone?

The german navy has since a couple of years those fuelcell powered subs. I wonder how their CO2 footprint looks/how much energy they need...since most hydrogen is produced from oil.

#196 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,498 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 03 January 2013 - 11:52

When I was a small boy I was told something that for some reason, stuck in my mind. It was: A horse can pull one ton on a road, 10 tons on rails and 80 tons on water, which is why, I suppose, that super-container/tanker ships are so economical. As most of the drag on a ship is due to surface activity, I assume a submarine suffers less from hydrodynamic drag. Large, deep-water (deepish) docks would be needed, and propulsion might be a problem...

#197 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,592 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 03 January 2013 - 13:13

If a tractor prop was better for water craft, why is it not more common?

In aircraft the theory is that the propwash causes drag over the flying surfaces and the body. I would imagine that tractor props for water craft would have a similar effect. In high speed craft I also expect that the bow rising and the boat getting up on the plane may cause problems for forward mounted engines.

In aircraft the tractor layout is prevalent mostly because it is easier to design - things like the exhausts aren't an issue, but they could be for a pusher arrangement.


The prop stays back there for directional stability and maneuverability reasons.

Sorry if I lack the proper english engineering terms:

The hull has a natural tendency to turn broadside against incoming water. To balance hat the rudder has to be in the back. It not only steers the ship but keeps it straight.

Now the prop goes there also, always washing the rudder, to provide better direction control at lower speeds. Unlike airplanes, that usually have wheels to the floor when in critically low speeds, rudder and prop was is all ships have in such conditions.

So even if the back of the ship is not the best place for the prop when you look at it isolated, it is the best position for the whole system performance.

Back to trains...

#198 Powersteer

Powersteer
  • Member

  • 2,460 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 03 January 2013 - 13:48

Rolling resistance or movement resistance, none can match the train, even from a ratio with aerodynamics until of course, it reaches insane speeds. It also does not have to use energy for vertical movements that does not escape ships and planes. The only problem is the cost and enerygy wasted on building that track but then again from an investment point of view, the returns are predictably worthwhile directly hinged on the price of fuel. With alternate energy technology on the rise it becomes more and more favourable and complimentary with the momentum of this part of development, train that is.

:cool:

#199 mariner

mariner
  • Member

  • 1,367 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 03 January 2013 - 22:27

You seem very determined to find alternatives to trains....

The biggest freight trains haul as much as 10,000t. That is approximately 17 fully laden Airbus A380s.


Just for the record the world's biggest freight train was in 2001 on the private BHP railroad in Western Australia. 90,000 tons in 682 wagons stretching 4.6 miles. Imagine waiting for that at a grade crossing.

Trains of 25,000 to 30,000 tons are routine in USA coal hauling and Australian ore movement. Engines are added mid - train to prevent breaking couplers. The first mid train radio control goes back to the 1960's


Advertisement

#200 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,194 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 03 January 2013 - 23:29

Rolling resistance or movement resistance, none can match the train, even from a ratio with aerodynamics until of course, it reaches insane speeds. It also does not have to use energy for vertical movements that does not escape ships and planes. The only problem is the cost and enerygy wasted on building that track but then again from an investment point of view, the returns are predictably worthwhile directly hinged on the price of fuel

A trans-Atlantic railroad perhaps?