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

#351 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 858 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 06 July 2013 - 06:11

I think you have shown that HSR would be competitive with air for the LA-SF route. Both for time and cost.

The distance between the two is not too far and there are plenty of potential customers.

Also, HSR can operate non-stop between the two centres or can service communities in between.

I guess that's why they have planned to build a fast train link. What remains to be seen is if it actually gets built.


While I agree that there is a huge potential demand for an LA-SF HSR service, the reality is that the economics for it do not make sense. There is existing technology for the trains and the LA-SF rail right-of-ways already exist. And if this HSR route could be shown to produce a profit, there are lots of billionaires in California that would readily put up the private money to construct the system. Unfortunately, due to the various economic and political conditions that currently exist in the state, even the most optimistic financial projections for an LA-SF HSR route put the initial construction costs at around $100B, plus annual operating costs of a couple $B more.

Seriously, businessmen are not stupid. There is huge demand for travel along this route, and if there were a possibility of making a profit from constructing a HSR system, it would have happened long ago. Consider that the commercial aircraft moving 6 million passengers per year between LA and SF are privately owned and making a profit.


Advertisement

#352 Robin Fairservice

Robin Fairservice
  • Member

  • 498 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 06 July 2013 - 15:58

While I agree that there is a huge potential demand for an LA-SF HSR service, the reality is that the economics for it do not make sense. There is existing technology for the trains and the LA-SF rail right-of-ways already exist. And if this HSR route could be shown to produce a profit, there are lots of billionaires in California that would readily put up the private money to construct the system. Unfortunately, due to the various economic and political conditions that currently exist in the state, even the most optimistic financial projections for an LA-SF HSR route put the initial construction costs at around $100B, plus annual operating costs of a couple $B more.

Seriously, businessmen are not stupid. There is huge demand for travel along this route, and if there were a possibility of making a profit from constructing a HSR system, it would have happened long ago. Consider that the commercial aircraft moving 6 million passengers per year between LA and SF are privately owned and making a profit.


The problem with private financing for major public enterprises is that the financiers only have short lives so cannot afford to get their returns over a long period of time. Public entities can. Regarding air travel the planes can be financed for their relatively short economic lives, but the airports cannot; hence the airports are generally privately owned.

#353 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,304 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 07 July 2013 - 23:48

. . . . hence the airports are generally privately owned.

Publicly?

#354 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 858 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 08 July 2013 - 03:29

The problem with private financing for major public enterprises is that the financiers only have short lives so cannot afford to get their returns over a long period of time. Public entities can. Regarding air travel the planes can be financed for their relatively short economic lives, but the airports cannot; hence the airports are generally privately owned.


I don't know the specific economic situation that exists where you reside, but here in California where I live, almost all funding for public infrastructure projects is now funded by private investment. Construction of new or improved public school buildings, public roads, public transport systems such as light rail or subways, airports, etc. are paid for by bond sales to private investors. And the responsibility for making good on the future financial obligations of these bonds never lies with the "public entities" that borrowed the money, instead it simply gets passed on to hapless taxpayers.

When a private airline decides to purchase or lease new aircraft, they assume all of the financial obligations that come with that decision. Most commercial passenger aircraft operated by airlines in the western world are depreciated based on an 8-year life cycle. And it typically takes at least 4 years for a US airline to begin generating any profit from a new commercial aircraft purchase.

If you think HSR presents such a wonderful financial opportunity, then I would encourage you to pursue the potential that exists in California. If what you propose is true, you literally stand to make $billions in profits from the millions of passengers you can transport with your HSR service every year.

#355 Robin Fairservice

Robin Fairservice
  • Member

  • 498 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 08 July 2013 - 04:04

Publicly?

Sorry that should have been publicly!!!!

#356 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,304 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 08 July 2013 - 05:13

I don't know the specific economic situation that exists where you reside, but here in California where I live, almost all funding for public infrastructure projects is now funded by private investment. Construction of new or improved public school buildings, public roads, public transport systems such as light rail or subways, airports, etc. are paid for by bond sales to private investors. And the responsibility for making good on the future financial obligations of these bonds never lies with the "public entities" that borrowed the money, instead it simply gets passed on to hapless taxpayers.

When a private airline decides to purchase or lease new aircraft, they assume all of the financial obligations that come with that decision. Most commercial passenger aircraft operated by airlines in the western world are depreciated based on an 8-year life cycle. And it typically takes at least 4 years for a US airline to begin generating any profit from a new commercial aircraft purchase.

If you think HSR presents such a wonderful financial opportunity, then I would encourage you to pursue the potential that exists in California. If what you propose is true, you literally stand to make $billions in profits from the millions of passengers you can transport with your HSR service every year.

You have just confirmed why the USA don't have any genuine HSR and many European and Asian countries do.

#357 Regazzoni

Regazzoni
  • Member

  • 902 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 08 July 2013 - 08:18

I don't know the specific economic situation that exists where you reside, but here in California where I live, almost all funding for public infrastructure projects is now funded by private investment. Construction of new or improved public school buildings, public roads, public transport systems such as light rail or subways, airports, etc. are paid for by bond sales to private investors. And the responsibility for making good on the future financial obligations of these bonds never lies with the "public entities" that borrowed the money, instead it simply gets passed on to hapless taxpayers.

So, once there were the republicans who wanted less government and no taxes, on one side, and the democrats who believed in the public stimulus to keep the economy going with the relative taxation to pay for it, on the other.

Now it seems it is immaterial which way one sees it from what you say (and I believe you). No public expenditure – in particular for essential services as schools, roads, public transport, etc - but the public will have to pay for them in any case.

The worst of Reaganism (or Thatcherism, if you like) - no (or bad) services – with the worst of liberalism (or Keynesianism) – taxes to pay for them anyway. Either way we’re ****ed!



#358 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,496 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 08 July 2013 - 13:47

I don't know the specific economic situation that exists where you reside, but here in California where I live, almost all funding for public infrastructure projects is now funded by private investment. Construction of new or improved public school buildings, public roads, public transport systems such as light rail or subways, airports, etc. are paid for by bond sales to private investors. And the responsibility for making good on the future financial obligations of these bonds never lies with the "public entities" that borrowed the money, instead it simply gets passed on to hapless taxpayers.


So, if I understand this correctly, the government still funds the development of infrastructure. It's just that they borrow money from "investors".

Private investors are not actually investing in the infrastructure. They don't have equity in the infrastructure when it is completed and paid for.

They are basically loaning money to the government like a bank.

#359 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 877 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 08 July 2013 - 14:19

So, if I understand this correctly, the government still funds the development of infrastructure. It's just that they borrow money from "investors".

Private investors are not actually investing in the infrastructure. They don't have equity in the infrastructure when it is completed and paid for.

They are basically loaning money to the government like a bank.


I hate to sound like an elitist (or whatever) but one very important reason that most people prefer to travel on planes rather than buses, trains or other forms of public transport is that yobbos don't tend to travel on planes - and if they do the hosties etc. keep a fairly tight control over passenger bad behaviour. Travel on trains, buses etc. can often be downright dangerous.

Advertisement

#360 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,496 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 08 July 2013 - 22:52

I hate to sound like an elitist (or whatever) but one very important reason that most people prefer to travel on planes rather than buses, trains or other forms of public transport is that yobbos don't tend to travel on planes - and if they do the hosties etc. keep a fairly tight control over passenger bad behaviour. Travel on trains, buses etc. can often be downright dangerous.


I would think that the time factor is still more important.

A HSR ticket would cost more than a regular train ticket, probably more than a cross country bus. And, certainly in Australia, similar or more than an air fare. Yobbos will be able to afford wither.

Intercity trains tend to have staff on board as well. Commuter trains and buses do not, however, and that is where you will see most of the "yobbo" travellers.

#361 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,496 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 08 July 2013 - 22:53

Oh, I forgot to add - trains and buses can stop and eject troublesome passengers en route. A bit difficult in an airline.

#362 Dmitriy_Guller

Dmitriy_Guller
  • Member

  • 4,049 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 08 July 2013 - 23:22

But more effective!

#363 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 877 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 09 July 2013 - 03:31

I would think that the time factor is still more important.

A HSR ticket would cost more than a regular train ticket, probably more than a cross country bus. And, certainly in Australia, similar or more than an air fare. Yobbos will be able to afford wither.

Intercity trains tend to have staff on board as well. Commuter trains and buses do not, however, and that is where you will see most of the "yobbo" travellers.


I agree - I think my argument applies more to why people use their cars and put up with traffic etc. rather than use public transport.

#364 indigoid

indigoid
  • Member

  • 382 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 09 July 2013 - 03:46

Intercity trains tend to have staff on board as well. Commuter trains and buses do not, however, and that is where you will see most of the "yobbo" travellers.


I'd much prefer the yobbos to be drunk on public transport than drunk in their cars!

FWIW I did the math a while back comparing motorcycle vs. train for my Sydney commute;

- $53/week for unlimited trains/buses/ferries in the required zones, or
- $40/week (average) just in motorway tolls, plus another $40-ish in vehicle running costs

No-brainer. The train is also faster, no matter how aggressively I lane-split/lane-filter on the bike, and substantially less stressful!

#365 Regazzoni

Regazzoni
  • Member

  • 902 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 09 July 2013 - 08:38

Since I am obliged to drive to work earlier this year, I realize how much reading and study I am missing, that one can do when commuting on public transport. That is definitely a plus to me.
I also used to commute into London on motorbike for few years, had to give up for the all the near-misses I had almost every week, mainly due to the pestiferous swarm of scooters and bicycles about. But it was quicker than the train.

RE: yobs (not) on airplanes. I gather none of you has ever flown with Ryanair… The airline itself is a bunch of yobs to begin with, dealing with them put in the wrong mood everybody who has some good will.



#366 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,499 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 09 July 2013 - 09:01

The airline itself is a bunch of yobs to begin with, dealing with them put in the wrong mood everybody who has some good will.

Ha ha! Aggressive from the top down...

#367 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 858 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 11 July 2013 - 04:40

So, if I understand this correctly, the government still funds the development of infrastructure. It's just that they borrow money from "investors".
Private investors are not actually investing in the infrastructure. They don't have equity in the infrastructure when it is completed and paid for.
They are basically loaning money to the government like a bank.


I would point out a couple of exceptions to your comments. First, here in California it would be more correct to say that taxpayers fund public infrastructure projects rather than government itself, since the only monies government has are the revenues collected from taxpayers. Second, raising funding for public infrastructure projects through public bond offerings is not the same as government receiving a loan. Bond funds are usually provided without any collateral backing, while a loan would normally require some form of collateral. At one time, bonds issued by California or the United States governments were considered as good as gold, since the California and US taxpayers were ultimately responsible for making good on the bond payments. But now that the public debt obligation of California is over $150B and that of the US government is over $16T, it is very difficult for them to raise more capital by issuing bonds.

California is not the only place that is having second thoughts about expending large amounts of public money to build HSR systems. Take a look at what is happening in the UK:

http://www.khl.com/m...l-project-jumps

#368 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,496 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 11 July 2013 - 05:09

I would point out a couple of exceptions to your comments. First, here in California it would be more correct to say that taxpayers fund public infrastructure projects rather than government itself, since the only monies government has are the revenues collected from taxpayers.


Governments are generally funded by taxpayers. California is not on its own there.


Second, raising funding for public infrastructure projects through public bond offerings is not the same as government receiving a loan. Bond funds are usually provided without any collateral backing, while a loan would normally require some form of collateral.


Like unsecured loans?


California is not the only place that is having second thoughts about expending large amounts of public money to build HSR systems. Take a look at what is happening in the UK:

http://www.khl.com/m...l-project-jumps


Read the article and didn't see where it said they were having second thoughts - just that the price had jumped.



#369 Regazzoni

Regazzoni
  • Member

  • 902 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 11 July 2013 - 12:07

California is not the only place that is having second thoughts about expending large amounts of public money to build HSR systems. Take a look at what is happening in the UK:

http://www.khl.com/m...l-project-jumps

It is fair to say that HSR has become fashionable and all sorts of arguments are brought forward to justify any investment in it (however half-hearted or, better, half-baked it may be), most of which have nothing to do with the actual merits of the transport mode itself: in particular internal politics, national pride [“the French did it, why can’t we”], EU directives and funding etc. With the likely result, on those bases, that we, the taxpayer, will end up paying the bill in any case, as slider rightly says. There is a history of that here in the UK (far from being the only country in this) of political motivations ahead of any social or economic benefit - Channel tunnel, Millennium Dome, 2012 Olympics etc.

It is difficult to justify the kind of expenditure envisaged – 30-plus billion pounds to begin with, which most likely will double in due course – just to shorten the travel time to Birmingham or Manchester when one can already get there in 1h24min and 2h08min, respectively. One argument brought in favour, which deviates from what should be the main benefit of an HSR line (speed, hence less travel time), is the need to increase “capacity”, which one would think doesn’t necessarily require to build an HSR line as such. It’s like to say that there is the need for more student public transport in Woking, so let’s buy an x-number of McLarens road cars and build dedicated lanes to increase the capacity by increasing the frequency, because they are quicker than anything else on the road.

One can see some argument on a London-Glasgow link, but numbers (volume) would need to be carefully checked to sustain the argument. For example, in the last year I have been a number of times for a one-day meeting in Birmingham, left Euston at 7:30, arriving in New Street by 9:00 and comfortably back in the day. I had to do the same for Glasgow, but to make it all in one day I have always flown.

Another key issue in countries like the UK is the lack of available land. France, Spain, Australia or California have the main cities located at such distances that a quick link could be viable and have ample room (sort of, it’s never that easy in reality) for the corridors required.

Quite the same UK arguments – short relative distances, overpopulated country - applies to Italy, where one can already get in reasonable time from Rome to Florence, Bologna or Naples which hardly would require new expensive, top end lines, rather than improving the existing, for example the one that goes from Naples to Sicily which is a national shame of huge proportions [about which nobody really cares, but obviously we need instead an HSR between two far away cities like Turin and Milan, 143km densely populated…]. Similar to the London-Glasgow, there is the Rome-Milan which could maybe make sense, seen the air travel volume between the two cities. But then one has to argue that probably it would need a dedicate line with no intermediate stops, steering clear altogether of Florence and Bologna and that frankly will never happen. Which government or political party will forsake the votes of major urban areas like those for the sake of economic reason of the whole nation? That would be akin to science fiction!

I work in the business, I like HSR as technology and professional technical challenge. Can see the argument in favour where rail lines do not exist or are obsolete and there are sufficient relative distances between major cities as well as a culture of land-based public transport use. But on shorter distances with efficient rail lines already present it is difficult to see where reason ends and mumbo-jumbo takes hold.



#370 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,304 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 12 July 2013 - 04:58

Agree with your conclusions and of course as the thread title suggests, the real niche for HSR, is as competition to (overland) air travel.

#371 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 858 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 13 July 2013 - 06:41

I work in the business, I like HSR as technology and professional technical challenge. Can see the argument in favour where rail lines do not exist or are obsolete and there are sufficient relative distances between major cities as well as a culture of land-based public transport use. But on shorter distances with efficient rail lines already present it is difficult to see where reason ends and mumbo-jumbo takes hold.


I work in the aerospace engineering business, and like you I appreciate the technology involved in both HSR and commercial aircraft. Frankly, I have no fundamental problem with the idea of using public funds to build HSR routes in California, as long as the government agency promoting the project can provide some proof that the massive expense can be justified. Heck, I'd be satisfied if it could be proved that the project would just break even within a decade.

While HSR passenger projects have not had any success in California, there has been a fairly large increase in rail freight traffic over the past decade in California.


#372 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 13,008 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 13 July 2013 - 21:10

Frankly, I have no fundamental problem with the idea of using public funds to build HSR routes in California, as long as the government agency promoting the project can provide some proof that the massive expense can be justified. Heck, I'd be satisfied if it could be proved that the project would just break even within a decade.


Just as I have no problem with massive public spending on streets and highways and all their associated infrastructure. As long as they too "break even" within a decade.


#373 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,496 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 14 July 2013 - 00:09

I don't think you can apply business logic directly to large government funded projects.

The reason I say this is that governments get some of the expenditure back through taxes - from those working on the project, and from the increased economic activity created directly or indirectly from the project. Private concerns don't collect tax, so don't benefit in this way.

#374 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 13,008 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 14 July 2013 - 03:07

Of course you can't really apply business logic to public works, they are set out to accomplish completely different and often directly opposed goals. I was just having a poke at the childish idea that public transportation projects could be subject to some simple balance sheet calculation where you just run the numbers and determine if the project is successful or not by whether they "break even". Private businesses have no inherent aim other than generating profits. If a profit is there to be made legally poisoning aquifers and making children sick and die, then the imperative in private business is to make it. And if making it legal to do so means buying politicians until they do as you order, then that's what you must do. Running governments like businesses or outsourcing government to private companies has to be one of the stupidest ideas ever put forward. Governments are there to promote the greater common good, while private business has no interest whatever in so doing if it means a penny less in profits for the owners and shareholders.

HSR may or may not make sense in any given case, but like any other public spending decision that determination should be based on net public benefit and nothing else.

#375 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,496 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 14 July 2013 - 06:36

I agree Desmo. I wasn't replying to you, as such.

Slider has said previously that roads make money. Not sure how that works, other than through taxes. And I would be interested to see the true cost of roads.

Interestingly, in Melbourne a study has determined that road works in that city have already reached a point of diminishing returns. That is, when new roads are built their capacity is taken up immediately so there is no economic benefit from reducing congestion. The conclusion being that adding capacity to the city's road system is nearly pointless.

Also in Victoria, to follow on a point you made, the government outsourced services to save money - $1bn. The problem is that the contracted services to replace them now cost more than $1bn.

And Telstra, formerly the governmnet owned telco, has made more profits since privatisation than the amount of money gained from its sale. Plus it is costing approximately $10bn more to do the NBN because Telstra is a private company.

#376 indigoid

indigoid
  • Member

  • 382 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 14 July 2013 - 09:32

Interestingly, in Melbourne a study has determined that road works in that city have already reached a point of diminishing returns. That is, when new roads are built their capacity is taken up immediately so there is no economic benefit from reducing congestion. The conclusion being that adding capacity to the city's road system is nearly pointless.


The Daily Terrorgraph ran an article a while back where it put commuters leaving the Sydney CBD for Paramatta at 5pm on each of ferry, bus, train, car and bicycle. The Train arrived first (with a comfortable lead), with the bus the next closest. Car/bicycle were IIRC pretty close, and the ferry (which requires a cab as well as it doesn't go all the way to Parramatta) arriving last.

The "obvious" conclusion from this thoroughly unscientific experiment was ROADS! MOAR ROADS! Sigh.

Also in Victoria, to follow on a point you made, the government outsourced services to save money - $1bn. The problem is that the contracted services to replace them now cost more than $1bn.


If they are outsourcing stuff that currently costs them $2bn, with the intent of saving $1bn, and the contractor ends up billing more than $1bn but substantially less than $2bn, that's still a big saving, right? Or did you not mean what you wrote?

#377 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,496 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 14 July 2013 - 10:26

If they are outsourcing stuff that currently costs them $2bn, with the intent of saving $1bn, and the contractor ends up billing more than $1bn but substantially less than $2bn, that's still a big saving, right? Or did you not mean what you wrote?


Maybe I wasn't so clear?

The savings of the cut services was $1bn. The cost of the replacement services was $1bn+. So they didn't save money at all.

#378 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 858 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 15 July 2013 - 06:03

Slider has said previously that roads make money. Not sure how that works, other than through taxes. And I would be interested to see the true cost of roads.


Wuzak,

In the US and the state of California where I live, publicly funded roads and highways do not make "money". Instead they generate far more in tax revenues than they ever cost to construct. In California, the majority of tax revenues collected from fuel sales, vehicle sales, and vehicle registrations is diverted to expenditures other than constructing or maintaining public highways. The tax revenues generated from private owners of automobiles in California is mostly diverted to support the massive social welfare state existing in California. If all of the tax revenues produced in California from private automobile use was directed towards construction and maintenance of public roadways, we would literally be driving on streets paved in gold.

#379 Dmitriy_Guller

Dmitriy_Guller
  • Member

  • 4,049 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 15 July 2013 - 06:16

Probably not literally, at least not with the gold prices the way they are. It would probably be a crappy road surface to drive on regardless.

Edited by Dmitriy_Guller, 15 July 2013 - 06:16.


Advertisement

#380 indigoid

indigoid
  • Member

  • 382 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 15 July 2013 - 12:54

Probably not literally, at least not with the gold prices the way they are. It would probably be a crappy road surface to drive on regardless.


I read somewhere that all the gold ever mined/found would fit in a 20m cube. You'd need to spread it pretty thin, if true

edit: http://www.bbc.co.uk...gazine-21969100

Edited by indigoid, 15 July 2013 - 12:55.


#381 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,304 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 16 July 2013 - 08:21

That's one of the nice things about gold. You can spread it pretty thin.

#382 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 877 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 16 July 2013 - 10:45

That's one of the nice things about gold. You can spread it pretty thin.


It can be beaten so thin that light can be seen through it - a few atoms thick.

#383 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,652 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 17 July 2013 - 16:30

http://edition.cnn.c...tube-transport/

But I guess it would fit best in the Feliks thread...

#384 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 4,837 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 17 July 2013 - 19:49

Another article touching on topics that were discussed here:
http://www.guardian....house-emissions

#385 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 858 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 18 July 2013 - 03:18

How about a 600mph train ride between LA and SF?

http://bits.blogs.ny...gh-speed-train/

#386 Regazzoni

Regazzoni
  • Member

  • 902 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 24 July 2013 - 21:36

Train accident tonight on the AVE line (Spanish HSR) between Ourense and Santiago in Galicia:

http://ccaa.elpais.c...125_734192.html

The train should be a RENFE Class 120, 250 km/h max speed, which can switch gauge without stopping from HSR line to normal (Spanish) gauge:

http://en.wikipedia....RENFE_Class_120

I believe the French TGV never had an accident.

#387 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,496 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 24 July 2013 - 22:44

I believe the French TGV never had an accident.


I believe they have had accidents, but none fatal.


#388 Regazzoni

Regazzoni
  • Member

  • 902 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 25 July 2013 - 20:42

Reports say it was going over twice the posted speed limit, but one would expect some automatic brake systems on these machines.

Looking at the crash footage, the locomotive looks fine in negotiating the curve, it seems the carriage behind the locomotive derails first.



#389 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,304 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 25 July 2013 - 22:52

Wow!
Looks like the camera didn't survive the impact either.

#390 Regazzoni

Regazzoni
  • Member

  • 902 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 26 July 2013 - 10:29

Looking at the crash footage, the locomotive looks fine in negotiating the curve, it seems the carriage behind the locomotive derails first.

When I first saw the footage, it did remind of the German HSR crash (which I saw reconstructed in a documentary), where the first two coaches cleared the obstacle (a bridge).
http://en.wikipedia...._train_disaster
Here, it seems something happens behind the locomotive, whether the speed is the direct cause remains to be seen.

#391 Kalmake

Kalmake
  • Member

  • 464 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 26 July 2013 - 11:44

The idiot was doing 190km/h on 80km/h zone.

#392 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,059 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 26 July 2013 - 15:32

Next big thing in terror. Get a job as a driver/pilot and then just floor it. Could be fixed with automation and systems like in australia.

Regarding the locomotive not derailing. The locomotive is heavier and probably has a better center of gravity due to heavier boggies (motors and such). also it might have better flange lubrication.

Im not sure about flange lubrication further down in Europe but in Norway being basically only corners there is a lot of lubrication even on the non motorised boggies. The new trains had from factory lubrication every 500m or something. Now its tuned to every 300m. Its a certain amount of cm^3 pr wheel travel or something.

I think the flange is usually around 30mm and can max be 50ishmm

Edited by MatsNorway, 26 July 2013 - 15:33.


#393 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,499 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 26 July 2013 - 17:42

Is this lubricant fed to the wheel flanges, like a spray, drip or squirt? I thought the rims and flanges had to be kept dry to aid traction - hence the sand tubes on locos. Although they may only have been used on steam locos...

#394 mariner

mariner
  • Member

  • 1,377 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 26 July 2013 - 19:39

I think flange oilers are applied just to the sides of the flanges not to the track contact surface - or no brakes!

The flanges hould never , in normal circumstances, be the thing that keeps the train on the track. The wheel profile does that , both by alllowing a " differential " effect on a solid axle due to the slope across the contact patch, and by using the resultant forces to "steer" the wheels.
l
What wheel profile to use to both " steer " the train and not cause brinneling type failures of the rail head is a huge , highly complex, topic way beyound me. however , generally you don't want flange contact except on extremely sharp bends in stations etc.

I dont know enough about the train that crashed but many Spanish trains ove time have used the "talgo" system which has shorter coaches with only 4 wheels and a geometry which does the steering. It is uni directional so the trains must be turned. Talgo was Spanish and their track quality poor in the past hence its popularity.

BTW in terms of the UK HS2 project the real question is what the opportunity cost of spending £50B on it truely is. Public money is taxation so it is limited so are there better ways to spend £50B by Gov't? The cost/benefit analysis used goes way beyond accounting costs to look at time saved by travellers, jobs created etc. The problem now is that even using all the social benefits the cost/benefit ratio looks marginal at £50B. Also the time saved is priced at the hourly value of businessmen's time ( in essence) so people are asking why spend taxes jsut to save executives time - and with modern wifi etc is any work time actually saved anyway.

#395 Regazzoni

Regazzoni
  • Member

  • 902 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 26 July 2013 - 20:49

To reply to Mats, looking at this sketch it doesn't look the CoG of the locomotive is lower than the coaches: http://www.talgo.de/...load/en_250.pdf

As usual, it will be found that a number of factors coming all together at the wrong time have contributed to the accident. Speed way above the limit at the location probably is a major contributing factor. But I wouldn't be surprised if the root cause was something going on wrong somewhere on the train, the film suggests that the front bogie of the first passenger coach first loses track and "grip" and then carries with it the locomotive and all the rest.

BTW in terms of the UK HS2 project the real question is what the opportunity cost of spending £50B on it truely is. Public money is taxation so it is limited so are there better ways to spend £50B by Gov't? The cost/benefit analysis used goes way beyond accounting costs to look at time saved by travellers, jobs created etc. The problem now is that even using all the social benefits the cost/benefit ratio looks marginal at £50B. Also the time saved is priced at the hourly value of businessmen's time ( in essence) so people are asking why spend taxes jsut to save executives time - and with modern wifi etc is any work time actually saved anyway.

Indeed, opportunity cost (beyond the transport mode itself), that's what we have been talking about. I don't want to comment on the overall picture, even if I am a UK taxpayer, because I would need to document myself. All I have done is expressing my reservations about spending that magnitude of money just to get to a city twenty minutes earlier when it's already within reach in no more than two hours.

Edited by Regazzoni, 26 July 2013 - 23:02.


#396 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,059 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 27 July 2013 - 00:51

Is this lubricant fed to the wheel flanges, like a spray, drip or squirt? I thought the rims and flanges had to be kept dry to aid traction - hence the sand tubes on locos. Although they may only have been used on steam locos...


Sand is still in use on leaf and ice. And sometimes on heavy climbs i think.

Flange wear is unavoidable and is heavily related to lubrication of the flange, if its poorly lubricated you have to take the material down much more to get the flange thickness right, this means you have to take much more down on the profile than when the flange grows.

The cornering dynamics on a train sounds so complicated. Tiny tiny fotprint and so on.

To reply to Mats, looking at this sketch it doesn't look the CoG of the locomotive is lower than the coaches: http://www.talgo.de/...load/en_250.pdf

As usual, it will be found that a number of factors coming all together at the wrong time have contributed to the accident. Speed way above the limit at the location probably is a major contributing factor. But I wouldn't be surprised if the root cause was something going on wrong somewhere on the train, the film suggests that the front bogie of the first passenger coach first loses track and "grip" and then carries with it the locomotive and all the rest.


I can't see anything on CoG exept that they say its very low on the coaches. So allright. lets assume better.

I too was imidatily thinking about the variable track gauge systems. But as you say as allways its likely more than one reason for the derailing





It has been around a while so i doubt it on that fact alone.

I find it interesting that there is two incidents where derailing has occured after the locomotive.
Do we have info on the other accident?
was it too going into a corner?
accelerating or deaccelerating?
even the slightest braking might push on the front coach to give some bad dynamics. On the extreme limit this might matter.

Simple trains have "simple" air actuated brake systems. There is delay in the system so the first carriages starts to brake first. Big freight trains uses a relatively long time to fully engage the brakes.

Edited by MatsNorway, 27 July 2013 - 00:56.


#397 Dmitriy_Guller

Dmitriy_Guller
  • Member

  • 4,049 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 27 July 2013 - 04:12

Could it be that when it comes to "gripping" the rails, the weakest link is somewhere behind the first set of trucks? There is another historical train crash that judging by description is quite similar to the recent crash: http://en.wikipedia....ne_Street_Wreck. The subway train entered a 6 mph curve at 30 mph, but the first part of the first train car made the corner before the rear trucks and the rest of the train derailed right into the tunnel abutment. The driver likewise survived the devastating crash, and was actually unscathed enough to flee the scene.

Edited by Dmitriy_Guller, 27 July 2013 - 04:14.


#398 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,499 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 27 July 2013 - 07:10

I think flange oilers are applied just to the sides of the flanges not to the track contact surface - or no brakes!

The flanges should never , in normal circumstances, be the thing that keeps the train on the track. The wheel profile does that , both by alllowing a " differential " effect on a solid axle due to the slope across the contact patch, and by using the resultant forces to "steer" the wheels.


Thanks m. Funny how logic (er, that's my own peculiar form of logic) told me that the flanges did much more than that!

I don't know enough about the train that crashed but many Spanish trains over time have used the "talgo" system which has shorter coaches with only 4 wheels and a geometry which does the steering. It is uni directional so the trains must be turned. Talgo was Spanish and their track quality poor in the past hence its popularity.


The drawings that Regga posted show that design. My first reaction on seeing the crash scene on TV was "Those carriages are a bit short!"

BTW in terms of the UK HS2 project the real question is what the opportunity cost of spending £50B on it truely is. Public money is taxation so it is limited so are there better ways to spend £50B by Gov't? The cost/benefit analysis used goes way beyond accounting costs to look at time saved by travellers, jobs created etc. The problem now is that even using all the social benefits the cost/benefit ratio looks marginal at £50B. Also the time saved is priced at the hourly value of businessmen's time ( in essence) so people are asking why spend taxes jsut to save executives time - and with modern wifi etc is any work time actually saved anyway.


I am all for major infrastructure programmes, there should have been many more over the decades (I can't mention power stations without getting quite angry - I'm just waiting for the lights to go out) but the HS2 project is a complete embarrassment.


To reply to Mats, looking at this sketch it doesn't look the CoG of the locomotive is lower than the coaches: http://www.talgo.de/...load/en_250.pdf

As usual, it will be found that a number of factors coming all together at the wrong time have contributed to the accident. Speed way above the limit at the location probably is a major contributing factor. But I wouldn't be surprised if the root cause was something going on wrong somewhere on the train, the film suggests that the front bogie of the first passenger coach first loses track and "grip" and then carries with it the locomotive and all the rest.


Could it not be that the locomotive, having greater mass at the same CoG, has a better 'grip' on the track? I seem to remember that with model railways it was rarely the locomotive that derailed, but coaches/wagons 2 and 3 that fell off, dragging the locomotive with them.


Indeed, opportunity cost (beyond the transport mode itself), that's what we have been talking about. I don't want to comment on the overall picture, even if I am a UK taxpayer, because I would need to document myself. All I have done is expressing my reservations about spending that magnitude of money just to get to a city twenty minutes earlier when it's already within reach in no more than two hours.

:up:


Sand is still in use on leaf and ice. And sometimes on heavy climbs i think.

Flange wear is unavoidable and is heavily related to lubrication of the flange, if its poorly lubricated you have to take the material down much more to get the flange thickness right, this means you have to take much more down on the profile than when the flange grows.

The cornering dynamics on a train sounds so complicated. Tiny tiny footprint and so on.


Thanks Mat


Could it be that when it comes to "gripping" the rails, the weakest link is somewhere behind the first set of trucks? The subway train entered a 6 mph curve at 30 mph, but the first part of the first train car made the corner before the rear trucks and the rest of the train derailed right into the tunnel abutment. .

This does seem to happen.


#399 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,521 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 28 July 2013 - 06:00

Considre a train travelling from north to south and then going round a curve.

I think what happens is that the lead carriage velocity southwards slows as it enters the curve due to friction and having to accelerate round the curve. The back of the train is still travelling southwards at the original speed. So the middle of the train is getting compressed, so the whole thing 'buckles'.

I have seen simulations of trains falling over, and just like your Hornby, the middle of the train usually rolls over first. I've even got one, but not on this computer.



Advertisement

#400 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,499 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 28 July 2013 - 07:47

Considre a train travelling from north to south and then going round a curve.

I think what happens is that the lead carriage velocity southwards slows as it enters the curve due to friction and having to accelerate round the curve. The back of the train is still travelling southwards at the original speed. So the middle of the train is getting compressed, so the whole thing 'buckles'.

Interesting that Mat said that the front of the train is braked first, with varying delays to the rear. Railway engineers must know what they are doing, but perhaps there are cases when simultaneous braking, or rear-end-first braking would help in a situation like the Spanish crash.