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

#201 johnny yuma

johnny yuma
  • Member

  • 923 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 04 January 2013 - 05:34

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.

Certainly did when Charlie Monroe (Bill's brother) wrote this in 1936 :

" Ain't gonna work on no railroad
Ain't gonna work on no farm
Gonna lay around the shack, till the mail train comes back
Rollin' in my sweet baby's arms"

Harness that energy and power up the grid !

Advertisement

#202 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 5,389 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 04 January 2013 - 23:03

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

And the scariest thing about those trains is they are trying to get them to be driverless, rely on computers and a display console a 1000 mile away in Perth.
Yeah right, that will really be safe.
Last year there was a major train derailment in the NT, because it seems the driver drove a train [in a flood] probably where he should not and the line collapsed under the train. I am really sure a computer could do better!! NOT.

I know when I wait for the Adelaide- Melbourne freight trains they do seem that long, actually I thought about 1682 wagons, all doing about 30kmh. Unfortunatly I live and work in an area cut by this major railline so see it a couple of times a month.

#203 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,417 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 05 January 2013 - 04:16

I know when I wait for the Adelaide- Melbourne freight trains they do seem that long, actually I thought about 1682 wagons, all doing about 30kmh. Unfortunatly I live and work in an area cut by this major railline so see it a couple of times a month.


So, what are you saying? That you need more grade separation in your area? Or that it would be preferable to have that load on thousands of trucks on the road?

#204 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 808 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 05 January 2013 - 07:22

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


Not really. Just trying to stimulate discussion. As I noted in previous posts, conventional rail makes sense for moving freight over land. But as for spending huge amounts of money building out HSR for passenger travel over long distances, I have not been convinced that it makes economic sense.


#205 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,417 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 05 January 2013 - 10:09

Not really. Just trying to stimulate discussion. As I noted in previous posts, conventional rail makes sense for moving freight over land. But as for spending huge amounts of money building out HSR for passenger travel over long distances, I have not been convinced that it makes economic sense.


As far as I am aware the only one who supported the idea of HSR passenger trains over long distances was Whiteblue.

Whether HSR rail between centres like Los Angeles and San Francisco or Melbourne and Sydney makes economic sense is another matter. I think it certainly does, especially in the light of increasing passenger traffic in the future.

#206 Joe Bosworth

Joe Bosworth
  • Member

  • 501 posts
  • Joined: May 05

Posted 05 January 2013 - 18:11

It must make sense for some routes given that the TGV owners are presently expanding their system from Bordeaux to Tours. The over 300 km of track costs some $20 million per km. In addition they have an order being delivered for some 80 train sets averaging some $65,000 per seat.

Makes enough econmic sense that the combined public/private owners of the consortia are spending serious money at this moment. They are surely making their econmic dcisions based on real life experiences successfully runing the extensive system that they own.

I also know that it made economic sense 20 years ago for the Sydney-Canberra-Melbourne run and that was a 100% privately funded effort with no government funding other than providing right of way long term lease at commercial rates for the time. As I have rxpounded elsewhere in this thread, government provision of right of way is the only way it can happen due to land title issues.

Regards


#207 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 5,389 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 06 January 2013 - 01:05

So, what are you saying? That you need more grade separation in your area? Or that it would be preferable to have that load on thousands of trucks on the road?

Not at all, just I seem to catch the bloody things when I am in a hurry. And really I never want to look at a slow moving train go by. Nor 300 B doubles either!

#208 jcbc3

jcbc3
  • Member

  • 4,991 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 07 January 2013 - 07:09

Posted Image

Unfortunately, it derailed during testing and killed the inventor and five other people.

Wikipedia

#209 Tenmantaylor

Tenmantaylor
  • Member

  • 7,993 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 07 January 2013 - 10:49

That really is living fast dying young :eek: Looks an ambitious piece of engineering if nothing else. Streamlined not just for style.

His legacy lived on it seemed (even if many inventors didn't): http://sukumarbloggi...-their-own.html

Edited by Tenmantaylor, 07 January 2013 - 10:52.


#210 johnny yuma

johnny yuma
  • Member

  • 923 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 08 January 2013 - 00:40

It must make sense for some routes given that the TGV owners are presently expanding their system from Bordeaux to Tours. The over 300 km of track costs some $20 million per km. In addition they have an order being delivered for some 80 train sets averaging some $65,000 per seat.

Makes enough econmic sense that the combined public/private owners of the consortia are spending serious money at this moment. They are surely making their econmic dcisions based on real life experiences successfully runing the extensive system that they own.

I also know that it made economic sense 20 years ago for the Sydney-Canberra-Melbourne run and that was a 100% privately funded effort with no government funding other than providing right of way long term lease at commercial rates for the time. As I have rxpounded elsewhere in this thread, government provision of right of way is the only way it can happen due to land title issues.

Regards

Joe,what details were used in that conclusion of 20 years ago? Is the proposed route known in any detail,or is it broad brush assumptions? Did the study
aim to only find ways to say yes,or was there informed,critical appraisal ? Construction companies would never say it can't be done to budget...until they blow the
budget,but by then all parties are committed,and money is "found".I still feel what works in densely populated regions of the world does not necessarily work in
Australia,particularly as our desired route is right along the most challenging topography in Australia.There aren't any mountains,gorges and river valleys,expensive real estate or National Parks at 20,000 feet ! So many difficulties,so few potential passengers compared to,say,France with 65 million residents and 80 million tourists per year v.Australia's
South East with maybe 14 million people and 4 or 5 million tourists per year.If we can't fill the huge numbers of trains they fill in France,how can it be viable?

#211 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,039 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 08 January 2013 - 04:12

Johnny, do you have a random-fire "Enter" key or did you paste that post from a plain-text file?

#212 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,039 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 08 January 2013 - 05:05

Joe,what details were used in that conclusion of 20 years ago? Is the proposed route known in any detail,or is it broad brush assumptions? Did the study
aim to only find ways to say yes,or was there informed,critical appraisal ? Construction companies would never say it can't be done to budget...until they blow the
budget,but by then all parties are committed,and money is "found".I still feel what works in densely populated regions of the world does not necessarily work in
Australia,particularly as our desired route is right along the most challenging topography in Australia.There aren't any mountains,gorges and river valleys,expensive real estate or National Parks at 20,000 feet ! So many difficulties,so few potential passengers compared to,say,France with 65 million residents and 80 million tourists per year v.Australia's
South East with maybe 14 million people and 4 or 5 million tourists per year.If we can't fill the huge numbers of trains they fill in France,how can it be viable?

Once again Johnny, I am sure your logic has produced the right answer - something Joe's multi-million dollar feasibility study was not capable of.

FWIW. In 2007 air travel between Brisbane, Gold Coast, Sydney and Melbourne (No other stops) carried about 20 million passengers. That's about 50,000 passengers per day.

A high speed rail link is a LONG TERM project - say 20 years. What will those passenger numbers be in 20 years? What will be the price of jet fuel in 20 years? What is the cost for a second airport for Sydney?

#213 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,417 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 08 January 2013 - 05:06

So many difficulties,so few potential passengers compared to,say,France with 65 million residents and 80 million tourists per year v.Australia's South East with maybe 14 million people and 4 or 5 million tourists per year.If we can't fill the huge numbers of trains they fill in France,how can it be viable?


Of course France has a far more extensive system than is proposed for Australia. So passenger numbers aren't directly comparable for the overall system. Perhaps you could find a single route and find the ridership on that.

The discussion paper released by the government in 2011 shows about 6 million passenger movements from Sydney to Melbourne now. Add up all the other parts (include Sydney to Canberra, Sydney to Newcastle and Sydney to Brisbane, Brisbane to Melbourne) and the total must be double that. It also predicts a doubling of passenger movements by 2050.

The discussion paper worked on ridership of roughly half the air movements for the Melbourne to Sydney route, for example.



Joe,what details were used in that conclusion of 20 years ago? Is the proposed route known in any detail,or is it broad brush assumptions?


Routes have been discussed and proposed for HSR for 30 years.


Did the study aim to only find ways to say yes,or was there informed,critical appraisal ?


If I understand Joe right, his study dealt only with running the service - not construction. Part of the cost to that service is a fee for the use of the tracks (right of way).


Construction companies would never say it can't be done to budget...until they blow the budget,but by then all parties are committed,and money is "found".


That all depends on the contract arrangements.




I still feel what works in densely populated regions of the world does not necessarily work in Australia,particularly as our desired route is right along the most challenging topography in Australia. There aren't any mountains,gorges and river valleys,expensive real estate or National Parks at 20,000 feet!


Don't know what you consider densely populated.

So challenging they built a railroad along it 100 years ago.

#214 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,417 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 08 January 2013 - 05:40

Saw a report last nigh, not sure from how long ago, where a Republican senator was so dismayed at the subsidy paid to Amtrak that he proposed privatising the profitable section (ie the North East Corridor). Can't quite see how that will reduce the subsidy....

#215 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 785 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 08 January 2013 - 13:10

Saw a report last nigh, not sure from how long ago, where a Republican senator was so dismayed at the subsidy paid to Amtrak that he proposed privatising the profitable section (ie the North East Corridor). Can't quite see how that will reduce the subsidy....


Woozy - I found your previous obsession with exotic aero engines and aeroplanes far more interesting than your current obsession with high-speed etc. trains. How about a return to planes etc.?

#216 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,417 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 08 January 2013 - 22:22

Woozy - I found your previous obsession with exotic aero engines and aeroplanes far more interesting than your current obsession with high-speed etc. trains. How about a return to planes etc.?



Excuse my foolishness.

You may be interested to know that I believe that the Mosquito was the best strategic bomber the Allies had in the ETO in WW2, but they failed to realise it.

But that is slightly off topic for this thread....

Edited by Wuzak, 08 January 2013 - 22:22.


#217 johnny yuma

johnny yuma
  • Member

  • 923 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 09 January 2013 - 01:19

Don't know what you consider densely populated.

So challenging they built a railroad along it 100 years ago.
[/quote]
wuzak

Well I consider France is densely populated with mostly well off citizens,with wealthier (on average) tourists.

I have long admired what Australia achieved in rail construction from 1855 to say 1935.After that trucks,cars and aeroplanes
bit into rail deeply,and in fact are still biting.Most of the old Wheat and Livestock lines are long abandoned.After the postwar Rural
boom years,England was to join the Common Market and our best customer for our produce stepped back towards Europe .The
construction of our rail lines I suspect was done with British Empire capital,like the Harbour Bridge.There was not even an
Australian Federal Government at all until 1901.

Edited by johnny yuma, 09 January 2013 - 01:21.


#218 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 785 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 09 January 2013 - 03:30

Excuse my foolishness.

You may be interested to know that I believe that the Mosquito was the best strategic bomber the Allies had in the ETO in WW2, but they failed to realise it.

But that is slightly off topic for this thread....


I would have to agree about the Mosquito.

#219 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 808 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 09 January 2013 - 04:20

Saw a report last nigh, not sure from how long ago, where a Republican senator was so dismayed at the subsidy paid to Amtrak that he proposed privatising the profitable section (ie the North East Corridor). Can't quite see how that will reduce the subsidy....


Wuzak-

Amtrak received $1.6B in direct federal subsidies in 2011, and had 30 million passengers during the year. Of course, the full value of financial subsidies governments contributed to Amtrak in 2011 is probably 2 or 3 times that amount. Since there are lots of indirect ways that Amtrak receives financial support, such as government contribution to rail retiree private pension and health care funds, tax credits, depreciation of assets, fuel tax exemptions, cost savings due to exemptions from environmental regulations, etc.

Advertisement

#220 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,417 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 09 January 2013 - 04:31

Wuzak-

Amtrak received $1.6B in direct federal subsidies in 2011, and had 30 million passengers during the year. Of course, the full value of financial subsidies governments contributed to Amtrak in 2011 is probably 2 or 3 times that amount. Since there are lots of indirect ways that Amtrak receives financial support, such as government contribution to rail retiree private pension and health care funds, tax credits, depreciation of assets, fuel tax exemptions, cost savings due to exemptions from environmental regulations, etc.


And privatising the only profitable part of teh system will reduce this how?

It is my understanding that the government also underwrites the private pension and health care funds for former airline workers.

#221 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,491 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 09 January 2013 - 04:40

Well I consider France is densely populated with mostly well off citizens,with wealthier (on average) tourists.

I wish the UK was as densely populated as France, we might have room to breath. I'm not sure about 'well off citizens', but when the merde hits the fan, they will be in some considerable trouble.

Edited by Tony Matthews, 09 January 2013 - 04:41.


#222 Dmitriy_Guller

Dmitriy_Guller
  • Member

  • 3,926 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 09 January 2013 - 05:19

And privatising the only profitable part of teh system will reduce this how?

It is my understanding that the government also underwrites the private pension and health care funds for former airline workers.

I think the idea is to kill the rest.

#223 johnny yuma

johnny yuma
  • Member

  • 923 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 09 January 2013 - 05:51

I wish the UK was as densely populated as France, we might have room to breath. I'm not sure about 'well off citizens', but when the merde hits the fan, they will be in some considerable trouble.

Might be time to dust off the Guillotine...

#224 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,417 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 09 January 2013 - 08:00

I think the idea is to kill the rest.


Wouldn't it be better to privatise the whole lot and let the new owners sort out what services to keep and which to dispose of?

#225 Dmitriy_Guller

Dmitriy_Guller
  • Member

  • 3,926 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 09 January 2013 - 14:25

Wouldn't it be better to privatise the whole lot and let the new owners sort out what services to keep and which to dispose of?

There probably is a better idea out there, or ten. Republicans aren't exactly known for letting pragmatism override ideology when it comes to privatization.

#226 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 12,715 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 09 January 2013 - 15:32

Seems you’ve never been to France. With Spain, it’s the only country in Europe where you can drive for hours and not see any town or even house around, as Tony above implied.


And even when you find a village, there will be nobody to be seen within it driving through.


#227 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 12,715 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 09 January 2013 - 15:49

Private enterprise tends to become less efficient than public in monopoly or near monopoly situations or when the corporations become large enough to capture the regulatory or legislative processes that control them. Private enterprise is highly efficient when there is a field of competitors for the consumer to choose from and none of them are large enough to skew the market forces in their individual favor or to form anti-competitive alliances. Railroads with highly limited lines of communication seem likely to be among the enterprises that can potentially be run more efficiently by public ownership. Where large inefficiencies are likely to arise are when the balance between public and private ownerships become ideologically skewed in either direction.

#228 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,491 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 09 January 2013 - 16:01

And even when you find a village, there will be nobody to be seen within it driving through.

Yes, isn't that odd?

#229 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,392 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 09 January 2013 - 21:13

Private enterprise tends to become less efficient than public in monopoly or near monopoly situations or when the corporations become large enough to capture the regulatory or legislative processes that control them. Private enterprise is highly efficient when there is a field of competitors for the consumer to choose from and none of them are large enough to skew the market forces in their individual favor or to form anti-competitive alliances. Railroads with highly limited lines of communication seem likely to be among the enterprises that can potentially be run more efficiently by public ownership. Where large inefficiencies are likely to arise are when the balance between public and private ownerships become ideologically skewed in either direction.

Nicely put. Another way of saying that is that the inefficiencies of public ownership of an effective monopoly market are less expensive than the same opartion in private hands.

#230 johnny yuma

johnny yuma
  • Member

  • 923 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 09 January 2013 - 22:53

And even when you find a village, there will be nobody to be seen within it driving through.

If a man drives through a village,and nobody sees him,does he really drive through a village ?

#231 johnny yuma

johnny yuma
  • Member

  • 923 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 09 January 2013 - 23:55

Seems you’ve never been to France. With Spain, it’s the only country in Europe where you can drive for hours and not see any town or even house around, as Tony above implied.

In fact, the idea of the TGV is to connect the main cities, which happen to be between them at a distance suitable for that transport mode (Paris, Lyon, Marseille, Nantes, Strasbourg etc). One would think a similar scope would exists for, say, Melbourne-Sidney-Brisbane, at about 900km distance between them.

Not sure about the well off citizens...

Australia ranks 232nd of 242 countries for population density with 3 people per sq.km. France ranks 94th with 118 people per sq.km.Spain is slightly less dense.
To be fair,if you threw the Area of France of 540,000 sq.km. over the most densely populated areas taking in Brisbane/sydney/Canberra/ Melbourne and surrounds you
would get about 15 million people,about 33 people per sq.km. ,but with almost zip population adjoining as it's ocean,desert or vast sheep and wheat properties only with
a scattering of towns,few above 10,000.
I've only SEEN France from the Spanish border near Ribes de Freser,but I did drive right through Spain between there and Granada.Parts do look a bit like inland Australia...but there were no HSTs thereabouts.And I understand the Spanish HSTs are not doing all that well.

#232 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,417 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 10 January 2013 - 00:15

http://www.publictra...density2010.pdf

#233 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,417 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 10 January 2013 - 00:35

Population density doesn't really count. What matters is passenger movements.

And there are at least 6m passenger movements between Melbourne and Sydney. 6m is actually just airline traffic - it doesn't include rail traffic (c 0.4m/year), buses or cars.

The current rail system isn't very attractive to passengers as it takes much longer than to fly, and is no quicker than driving.

High speed rail promises to be competitive for time with airlines, while being more comfortable and, mostly, more convenient. HSR also may attract passengers from bus services and private automobiles. Expected growth will see the passenger movements double in the next 30-40 years.

#234 mariner

mariner
  • Member

  • 1,327 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 10 January 2013 - 22:01

With respect specifically to rail I would not really suport the " public is best for monopoly" argument. The USA has, in effect , just four freight railroads with limited competitive overlap.

They are among the most efficient freight railroads in the world. The big distances help a lot as did the development of the Powder River Basin coal in Wyoming , but, they have done good job.

It wasn't always thus, in the 1970's many were near bankruptcy ( Penn Central was actually bankrupt ) and they were dogged by very expensive and restrictive union deals . However they got de - regualtion from some rather onerous common carrier rules and fixed themselves without any big subsidies. The US gov't owned Penn Central for while , as Conrail, but actualy did a good job of fixing that and sold it for good money to private rail firms.

I think that rail passenger service gets mixed up with public benefit arguments which make it hard for any rail business to run it even at break even. The obvious one is commuter travel, it requires huge capacity for 4 hour per day so cannot ever earn a return but for crowded cities its judged " essential" so gets subsidies on a large scale.

#235 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 808 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 11 January 2013 - 07:12

And privatising the only profitable part of teh system will reduce this how?

It is my understanding that the government also underwrites the private pension and health care funds for former airline workers.


Wuzak- The principle behind privatizing Amtrak would be to force it to divest any unprofitable routes and only retain those that can be operated profitably. In theory, a private Amtrak company would receive no taxpayer subsidies.

As for US airlines receiving federal tax subsidies for employee pension/healthcare costs, there is no direct federal support. The only federal support for these private airline corporations was in the form of federal pension fund insurance policies, which the airlines were required to pay premiums for. When an airline went bankrupt, as an underwriter the US government had to make good on the outstanding pension cost obligations of any airline employees.


#236 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 808 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 11 January 2013 - 07:36

With respect specifically to rail I would not really suport the " public is best for monopoly" argument. The USA has, in effect , just four freight railroads with limited competitive overlap........They are among the most efficient freight railroads in the world. The big distances help a lot as did the development of the Powder River Basin coal in Wyoming , but, they have done good job.


mariner-

You are correct about the efficiency of some US freight rail routes. Here in southern California where I live, the busiest freight route is the one heading east from the ports of Long Beach and San Pedro. These freight trains are literally miles long with shipping containers stacked two-high. It's an impressive sight to watch their 4-locomotives pull that load over Posted Image.

With one passing by every 15 or 20 minutes.

It's also impressive to see the lots full of new cars around the ports in Long Beach and San Pedro. There are literally tens of thousands of new Mercs, Lexuses and BMWs, as far as the eye can see, waiting to be shipped out by rail to dealers around the US.


#237 mariner

mariner
  • Member

  • 1,327 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 11 January 2013 - 13:40

Lovely pic, Slider - I think its the Tehachapi pass isnt it? - one of THE rail photo spots in the USA .

From the days when pasenger trainS ran regularly through the pass

http://www.goldenspi...duct/pxpcsl.jpg

Mind you, if you were the GM Cadillac brand manager all those BMW's etc. at the docks would make you very unhappy indeed !

#238 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 1,935 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 11 January 2013 - 15:52

That must be some quality rails.. Here in Norway one of the new Locomotives are not allowed to be run right after one another like pictured in front. Because they are afraid that two locomotives will move/damage the rails.

This is a Electric locomotive at around 90tonns. (metric for you old dummies)

btw. Without a midle locomotive wouldn`t the train give exessive wear on the wheelflange to the wagons in the midle in corners like this?

I have wondered about this for some time now.

Good picture. Propper size on those trains in US and Australia.

Edited by MatsNorway, 11 January 2013 - 16:28.


#239 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,491 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 11 January 2013 - 16:16

Posted Image.

Great image! I don't know if that is the Tehachapi Pass or not, but isn't that The Fiscal Cliff on the right?

Advertisement

#240 mariner

mariner
  • Member

  • 1,327 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 11 January 2013 - 17:08

I'm risking becoming the boards train techie!

US railroads ( being American (!) have two big size advantages over European railroads,

- The maximum height and width ( the "loading gauge") is bigger. This allows the double stack trains you see in the pic. US railrods have spent serious money raising tunnel roofs and often opening out tunnels to make sure full double stacks can reach the older Eastern destinations. The double stacks run 20 ft high and carry two 9 ft containers slung between the frames in five-unit articulated sets wih only six bogies. One train can haul up to 300 containers



Incidently the video shows the problem of mixing passenger and feight trains - its filmed from a commuter train platform and the operators have to interweave both trains down the same tracks.

There actually a car connection with these heights. The 1970's Chevy Vega may have been an example of everything you could do wrong with a car but it was cost enginered to hell and it was delivered hung nose down on special auto racks with just a central beam for a frame .

http://en.wikipedia....rt_A_Pac(2).jpg

(I hope Magoo can remember those!)

Also US railroads use very heavy rail and closely spaced sleepers to accept very high axle loads . Oringinally this was to allow msasive steam engines but today it allows high capacity coal wagons to run. For example Norfok Southern railroad now uses 130 tonne cars or 34 tons per axle. The Uk limit is about 25 tonnes in contrast.

#241 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 1,602 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 12 January 2013 - 04:46

Posted Image

Unfortunately, it derailed during testing and killed the inventor and five other people.

Wikipedia

That's the back end of the Franz Kruchenberg Schienenzeppelin, not Abakovsky's creation.

#242 jcbc3

jcbc3
  • Member

  • 4,991 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 12 January 2013 - 10:21

ok, I just took it of the internet. Silly me. :drunk:

Thanks for the correction.

I guess this one is better (though not quite as sexy):
Posted Image

#243 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 808 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 13 January 2013 - 05:42

Lovely pic, Slider - I think its the Tehachapi pass isnt it? - one of THE rail photo spots in the USA .


No, it's the Cajon Pass. Runs next to I15 north of San Bernardino. I have a brother who lives in Wrightwood, which is a few miles east (on highway 138) of where this picture was taken. Whenever I drive out to visit him, I always stop at the highway 138 rail overpass and watch these massive freight trains go by. There is one passing by about 20 or 30 minutes. It's quite an impressive sight up-close.


#244 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,417 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 12 April 2013 - 01:11

The Australian Government has released the second phase report on HSR for comment.

https://www.infrastr...peed/index.aspx

#245 johnny yuma

johnny yuma
  • Member

  • 923 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 18 April 2013 - 04:31

The Australian Government has released the second phase report on HSR for comment.

https://www.infrastr...peed/index.aspx

The whole shebang, Brisbane/Sydney/Canberra/Melbourne $114 Billion Australian 2012.Which
pretty much means forget it,as it is stated Government would have to provide the finished product,and
only then would a private operator probably make money. Spare us please. Makes the completion
of divided carriageway motorway betweem Sydney and Brisbane,still not near completion after 20 years
of government funding,look like small cheese.
Sydney itself still lacks a divided carriageway motorway on it's main north-south trucking and
tourist route between Hornsby and North Rocks,and there are lots of missing bits elsewhere.
And no ,there won't be goods transported on the HST unless even port more handling and urban road infrastructure is built.
Our political leaders lack the vision thing,all they look for is re-election.Only the fact voting is
compulsory,and that if you have to go into the booth you might as well vote for someone,most Australians hardly care who wins from the present lot,and wish another political party with some realistic ideas and backbone would magically appear to vote for.

Edited by johnny yuma, 18 April 2013 - 04:40.


#246 Bloggsworth

Bloggsworth
  • Member

  • 7,349 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 18 April 2013 - 11:23

Back to the UK - As I understand it, the reason existing lines cannot be used for high-speed trains is that the turns/bends would be too tight for the speed they plan to run at, so raising the electrics is not an option.

#247 Bob Riebe

Bob Riebe
  • Member

  • 1,667 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 18 April 2013 - 19:24

That must be some quality rails.. Here in Norway one of the new Locomotives are not allowed to be run right after one another like pictured in front. Because they are afraid that two locomotives will move/damage the rails.

This is a Electric locomotive at around 90tonns. (metric for you old dummies)

btw. Without a midle locomotive wouldn`t the train give exessive wear on the wheelflange to the wagons in the midle in corners like this?

I have wondered about this for some time now.

Good picture. Propper size on those trains in US and Australia.

Rail weight in the U.S. is, not counting the few very, very old branch lines still running on 19th century rails in places, of very high weight.
One hundred pound rail nowadays is light rail.

Some trains still use helpers where steep grade is found.

I have often wondered, especially on passenger trains, how much the aerodynamics of the lead locomotive affects fuel usage.
Diesel locomotives in the streamliner age were far more aerodynamic than the current lot.

Edited by Bob Riebe, 18 April 2013 - 19:25.


#248 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,417 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 18 April 2013 - 22:43

The whole shebang, Brisbane/Sydney/Canberra/Melbourne $114 Billion Australian 2012.Which
pretty much means forget it,as it is stated Government would have to provide the finished product,and
only then would a private operator probably make money. Spare us please.


It's funny how opponents immediately jump on the $114bn figure and say it isn't feasible.

The report says that the HSR network would be financially viable for a private operator, covering running and maintenance costs, but capital costs. Opponents say this means that there is $114bn down the drain.

But is it?

The report also states that the economic benefit ratio is 2.5 (or 1.1 using more pessimistic assumptions). I don't know much about economic BS, but it sounds positive for the economy overall. Of course that would be of no help to private investors, but is good for the government.


Makes the completion
of divided carriageway motorway betweem Sydney and Brisbane,still not near completion after 20 years
of government funding,look like small cheese.


Comparing the entire HSR project to a small section of highway is ludicrous. You would want to compare the whole highway network between Melbourne and Brisbane for something remotely like a fair comparison.


Sydney itself still lacks a divided carriageway motorway on it's main north-south trucking and
tourist route between Hornsby and North Rocks,and there are lots of missing bits elsewhere.
And no ,there won't be goods transported on the HST unless even port more handling and urban road infrastructure is built.


No, goods will not be transported by HST. Certainly not heavy goods, though there are some high speed freight trains now on the French network.

Part of the benefit of the HSR is to remove passenger services on the existing rail route. That would help rail freight some. Fixing the existing rail may help the competiveness and efficiency of freight rail.

If the HSR was to be used for freight I would imagine it would involve things like mail.





#249 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,392 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 20 April 2013 - 01:14

If the HSR was to be used for freight I would imagine it would involve things like mail.



And... fruit. Seriously, we fly fruit to SE Asia why not move fruit by high speed rail? One of the funniest speeches i have ever read was the green's leader applauding an initiative to fly asparagus (etc) from Avalon to SE Asia. I realise she and all pollies thinks that 787s and choppers are the natural form of transport, but she obviously hadn't thought through the oil required to get a product that is 60% water to fly 4000 km or more.

Personally I think if can throw 40 billion dollars at subs with no real purpose, and 44 billion on a national broadband network that makes no real sense, then 114billion less the cost of a second Sydney airport starts to look like good value for money - at least normal people will see a direct benefit.

Trouble is that a lot of the money has to be spent up front before any general benefit is seen.

#250 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,417 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 20 April 2013 - 03:46

And... fruit. Seriously, we fly fruit to SE Asia why not move fruit by high speed rail? One of the funniest speeches i have ever read was the green's leader applauding an initiative to fly asparagus (etc) from Avalon to SE Asia. I realise she and all pollies thinks that 787s and choppers are the natural form of transport, but she obviously hadn't thought through the oil required to get a product that is 60% water to fly 4000 km or more.

Personally I think if can throw 40 billion dollars at subs with no real purpose, and 44 billion on a national broadband network that makes no real sense, then 114billion less the cost of a second Sydney airport starts to look like good value for money - at least normal people will see a direct benefit.

Trouble is that a lot of the money has to be spent up front before any general benefit is seen.



I would agree with the subs, but have to disagree about the NBN. The NBN replaces and aging copper network and removes the monopoly created when Telstra was privatised without separating the retail and infrastructure sides of the business. The NBN will be the backbone of the telecommunications sector for many years to come.

(On the subs, I read recently that the Australian Navy have taken much delight in infiltrating USN carrier battlegroups with their subs and without being detected.)

The second Sydney airport has come up again. The main stream media sees a second Sydney airport as great value for money, estimated between $4bn and $11bn for construction. I have seen estimates as high as $30bn. I would postulate that the $4bn-$11bn estimates don't include road and rail infrastructure to connect the second airport with the rest of Sydney.

There is also the matter of time. The second Sydney airport has been in the works for 40 years. Yet it has got nowhere. No-one wants it to be in their neighbourhood either.

The most important part of the HSR network is costed at $50bn - the Melbourne-Canberra-Sydney route. That could have been paid for by the stimulus packages of 2008/2009, some of which was handouts to taxpayers.

Thanks for suggesting fruit as a possible use for high speed freight rail. I would never have considered that. Mostly I would think fruit and vegetables are transported by truck at present.