posted
My knowledge of high-speed trains is somewhat limited. I am wondering how practical they would be in the mountainous western US. It is my understanding that high-speed trains require fairly straight tracks. Would that be practical or cost effective in the mountainous western states?
The proposed high-speed corridor between San Francisco and LA would have to go over the Tehachapi mountains then up the Central Valley. What would the rails over the mountains look like? Would it require lots of tunnels? How fast could it go in them thar hills?
------------------ Trust God, love your neighbor, and never mistake opinion for truth. -Mr. Toy
posted
I think that one way to have high speed rail in the mountains without paying for expensive tunnels would be to simply make a long, continuous roller coaster. Of course, it could only operate during decent weather, and small children, pregnant women, the elderly, or anyone with a heart condition would be prohibited from riding.
Posts: 56 | From: Hawley, PA | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well...any tilting high-speed trainset is supposed to be able to reach speeds of between 100 and 120 mph when going around curves, i.e. being able to stay on the rails and maintaining passenger comfort while doing so, and all this depending on the radius of curve, etc. The Acela Express trainset has an active-tilt system, but apparently, it's not used on the CDOT/MTA segment of the Northeast Corridor (concerns about clearance between trains when tilting, since the AE was built with 2 inches excessive clearance each side), and I've heard no reports of speeds achieved on the numerous curves east of New Haven and west of New London, which is under Amtrak's auspices. Since the Cascades corridor is limited to 79 mph (due to having CTC-only traffic control, an FRA mandate), the potential of the Talgos out there (also tilting) on curves has not been fully explored or exploited.
This is worth a few internet searches, to be sure; I'll try to get to it after some of the other home-fixup projects I'm currently embroiled in this weekend :P
posted
High speed trains need dedicated tracks which differ from those which built for freight and mixed trafic.it must: 1-level crossing free. 2-without sharp curves.(it should be notted that tilting trains have been built just for passenger comfort and this concept couldn't increase the safe speed in the curves!) 3-And in some cases seperated by barriers(walls).(France TGVs) 4-track gradient isn't important for high speed trains which are electrified.it is permissable upto 3.5% gardient for this purpose which is too high for freight trains. this is because of high power/weight ratios. 5-it is obvious that high speed trains are electric trains.
because of curve restriction,long tunnels can be the unique solution in mountains. but as you know this isn't an economic solution in many cases.
Posts: 10 | From: Tehran IRAN | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's an interesting question, I think. Here in Colorado there is a lot of discussion about the viability of rail for reducing the amount of traffic on the interstate into the mountains. There is not a lot of room to widen the freeway and the amount of traffic is increasing steadily and rapidly. But folks still seem to want the independence of driving in to ski or hike.
I'll keep an eye out on the info that comes up here and pass along what I can. I haven't seen it mentioned as high speed trains, but any moving train would be faster than the stop and go traffic on busy days into and out of the mountains. Tunnels have been discussed, so maybe it would be high speed. Now where is my Dramamine....
Posts: 300 | From: Denver, CO USA | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jamshid: 2-without sharp curves.(it should be notted that tilting trains have been built just for passenger comfort and this concept couldn't increase the safe speed in the curves!)
Wrong, having tilting trains can increase line speed. Example: on a 110mph line, speeds can be increased by as much as 30mph for tilting trains (source: WCML in UK).
quote: 5-it is obvious that high speed trains are electric trains.
I don't think you're ever going to get knitting up in the Colorado mountains. I'd also like to point out that high speed diesel trains do exist - 125mph diesel multiple units in the UK for starters (old HSTs dating from 1976 and now Virgin Voyager sets).
I think the problem actually lies in the cities, not out in the countryside. Many long distance trains can average a good 60mph or more out in the countryside. But they get right down to crawling speed once in the cities and around the freight yards. Take Chicago for example - even outbound trains that don't attach extra cars upon departure from Union Station have huge padding in their schedules "just in case" (and they often use the padding). Get the speed up in the cities first, IMHO.
Geoff M.
Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
to Geof.. 1-tilting train concept increases comfort speed (in which passengers aren't disturbed by centrifugal force). but in each curve there is a safe speed (more than above mentioned) which more speeds may be result derailment.this speed depends on track geometry(ie track cants,track widening and also track quality)and rolling stocks dynamics which is independent from tilting! 2-I've never been states but i'vr been UK.and i have traveled by so called high speed Diesel multiples (intercity 125). but new meaning of high speed refered to as 250 to 300 kph (186 mph) and more. whit this meaning UK hasn't high speed train but Eurotrain. As you better know there isn't any diesel traction (locomotive hauled or multiple units) which have better than 200 kph (125 mph) maximum commersial speed. and also turboliners commersially failed because of costs and low availability thus there is only electric traction,high speed technology can rely on. there is a good refrence for high speed trains:http://o-keating.com/hsr/ Posts: 10 | From: Tehran IRAN | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
In Texas, it means increasing the Texas Eagle from its 35 MPH average between San Antonio and Dallas, to around 70 MPH. That would cut the travel time in half, thus increasing the "speed". This plan includes double track and reducing the RR crossings.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for all of the speedy replies. Some of my questions are answered. I'm wondering does anyone know if French TGV and Japanese Bullet Trains get into the mountains anywhere? If they do I assume they use lots of tunnels to avoid sharp curves.
BTW I consider "high speed" to be 135 MPH or faster. I think that is what the first Japanese Bullet Train did in the 1960s. Correct me if I'm wrong, bu I believe the trains previously known as Metroliners get up to 125.
If high-speed trains must of necessity be electrified, I would think that would limit the places they could go. Isolated stretches of catenary would be difficult to maintain, I would think.
------------------ Trust God, love your neighbor, and never mistake opinion for truth. -Mr. Toy
quote:Originally posted by jamshid: tilting train concept increases comfort speed (in which passengers aren't disturbed by centrifugal force)but in each curve there is a safe speed (more than above mentioned) which more speeds may be result derailment. this speed depends on track geometry (ie track cants,track widening and also track quality) and rolling stocks dynamics which is independent from tilting!
Most US passenger rolling stock (and steam locomotives) dating back to the 1930s could stay safely on the rails doing 100 mph around a curve with a 60 mph speed restriction. Of course, that meant everything falling on the floor in the dining car, but the idea of the tilting system reducing centrifugal forces applies to all solid and liquid objects traveling on the train. I wouldn't underestimate the design characteristics of passenger cars...
quote:new meaning of high speed refered to as 250 to 300 kph (186 mph) and more
By what authority, if you can tell me? FYI, the official US (Federal) definition of "high-speed rail" is 90+ mph. The Acela Express is reputed to be able to achieve 169 mph top speed; the Rohr Turboliner apparently achieved a top test speed in the low 150 mph range; and the United Aircraft Turbotrain had a top tested speed of 171 mph. All "low-speed" by your new definition of undetermined source...
quote:As you better know there isn't any diesel traction (locomotive hauled or multiple units) which have better than 200 kph (125 mph) maximum commersial speed.
According to the Talgo America website - www.talgoamerica.com - the European diesel version of the Talgo XXI is supposed to be able to achieve 135 mph. Don't know the truth, but that's the company's standpoint. There are also other ways to increase the speeds of diesel-electric that haven't yet been explored; one of my pet peeves is why using larger-diameter driving wheels hasn't been looked at yet. Starting traction would not be diminished, plus the faster-rotating surfaces of the large drivers would defray the drop in tractive effort and horsepower at higher speeds...just a pet theory...
There's also the largely unexplored realm of diesel-hydraulic traction...
quote:and also turboliners commersially failed because of costs and low availability
The same may be said for steam locomotives, i.e. costs; low availability came with the advent of the diesel. Not enough turbine-powered trains were made available to allow them to justify their costs by hauling high volumes of passengers at the speeds they were capable of...
quote:thus there is only electric traction, high speed technology can rely on. there is a good refrence for high speed trains: http://o-keating.com/hsr/
Well...the costs of electrifying a railroad equal that of building an unelectrified railroad from scratch, even in the present day. Even in the "new LRT system" realm, they're trying to look to dieselization to cut start-up costs, one running example in North America being Ottawa, Canada's O-Train. The second example (once running) will be New Jersey Transit's Southern NJ Light Rail line between Camden and Trenton in NJ. Heavy-rail is plagued with the same problem relating to electrification, regrettably, namely construction and maintenance cost. Until the funding issue is settled, you'll still have people looking to go the fossil-fuel route...
posted
It looks like the answers to several of these questions are relative.
Like mikesmith said, "high speed" to us Texans would be 70 mph, maybe even 50! But it's 200 mph or more if you live in France.
I don't understand the fascination with electrification. We can't even get the money to operate our current system, how could anyone possibly justify spending on electrification for long routes??? Something like Britain's 125 mph diesel InterCity system would be such a vast improvement for us, and could be done for much less investment. Such a system would make rail travel MUCH more competitive with other modes.
Posts: 12 | From: Bowie, Texas, USA | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
as i know amtrak is governmental.... some stuffs may be seem that cann't profit making for private sector. but offer vast profits for public and can money savig in a large scale.. passenger trains are good examples for these stuffs! constructing a dedicated electerified high speed trak needs too much money but could offer: 1-decrease number of car crash fatalities in highways.could you estimate the price of human life? 2-high speed trains at a range off 800 km can offer better overal travel time than every other stuff and even planes.)this is because rail stations were built in center of cities and you dont have to pass through security corridors and time vasting check ins at airports! could you estimate the price of peoples time? 3-using high speed trains will decrease usage of fossil fuels that means decrease of emissions. finally we will pay the price of our invasion to nature. coult you estimate the price of individual health? it is the task of governors who should pay for these stuffs. those countries who have high speed and good passenger trains have national railroads.
-it's too funny they are going to built diesel light rail vehicles! which travel in cities!
-I am wondering that United states with its giant economics don't pay attension to modern passenger trains unless for norht east. (Acela)
Posts: 10 | From: Tehran IRAN | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jamshid: it's too funny they are going to built diesel light rail vehicles! which travel in cities!
Consider the vast number of diesel buses that already travel in cities. We aren't going back to the past with most LRT systems (i.e. have them replace buses); most LRT systems are supplemental to the bus network instead of a direct replacement, plus, especially in the US, they are constructed on former heavy-rail alignments. If using diesel LRT means getting one more line up and running, I won't mind...
quote:I am wondering that United states with its giant economics don't pay attension to modern passenger trains unless for northeast (Acela)
Well...something that's considered sacred in the US is non-interference in the affairs of private companies, at least on the level of their business focus. Amtrak, outside the northeast, runs on private railways whose track and infrastructure is owned by private companies; these private companies are not concerned with how well an Amtrak train runs, only how well their own (freight) trains run, and will gladly hold an Amtrak train on a siding so as to allow their own train passage. Amtrak itself owns very few alignments, the only exceptions being most of the Northeast Corridor (Washington to NYC, then New Haven to Boston), some 100 miles of the Detroit-Chicago corridor, plus some sidings that are useless to passenger trains. Getting private railroads to accept high-speed passenger initiatives invading their tracks is a sticky proposal to say the least. Not to mention the many restrictions that the FRA impose, especially when it comes to high-speed trains (which are regarded as "less safe" due to the speeds they travel at); increased crash-protection, cab-signals and positive-train-stop controls before any speeds exceeding 110 mph are permitted (not to mention 79 mph), just for examples...
Frankly, before any HST dedicated corridors ever materialize in this country, the question on how to fund them should be decided on, quite rapidly...
quote:Originally posted by irishchieftain: By what authority, if you can tell me? FYI, the official US (Federal) definition of "high-speed rail" is 90+ mph. The Acela Express is reputed to be able to achieve 169 mph top speed; the Rohr Turboliner apparently achieved a top test speed in the low 150 mph range; and the United Aircraft Turbotrain had a top tested speed of 171 mph. All "low-speed" by your new definition of undetermined source...
you could download a good refrence from Tri-State High-Speed Rail Feasibility Studyfrom DOT or simply download its Executive Summary section (37.7 k PDF) you could find (at the first page paragraph two):Tri-State II evaluated incremental high speed (110 mph), high speed (150 mph) and very highspeed (over 185 mph) train technologies that could be operated on various route alignments. FYI refer to that refrence: - incremental high speed means :110 to 150 MPH or 177 to 241 Kph - high speed means:150 to 185 MPH or 241 to 298 Kph - very high speed means:more than 298 kph! following data have been given from a US Authority!(Department of Trasportation)
quote: There are also other ways to increase the speeds of diesel-electric that haven't yet been explored; one of my pet peeves is why using larger-diameter driving wheels hasn't been looked at yet. Starting traction would not be diminished, plus the faster-rotating surfaces of the large drivers would defray the drop in tractive effort and horsepower at higher speeds...just a pet theory...
There's also the largely unexplored realm of diesel-hydraulic traction...
forget 3 m diameter Bigboy driving wheels! power transmittion problems had been solved 50 years ago peacefully! the problem with diesels is the lack of power! nowadays high speed trains have a power/weight ratio over 15 hp/ton .this couldn't available with any diesel hauled train! and also hydraulic transmition have been used for many trainsets and couldn't solve any problem because of lack of efficiency and its complexity. as i mentioned the problem is power. electric trains (for example TGVs or ACELA) could develop 12000 hp for a ligh passenger train! is this aplicable with other modes!
quote: Not enough turbine-powered trains were made available to allow them to justify their costs by hauling high volumes of passengers at the speeds they were capable of...
They were failed at begining. could you remember ANFs . turbo liners had below problems: 1-they weren't suitable for partial loads that occurs frequntly in rail roads. 2-lack of efficiency (they were too energy hungery!) 2-turbines are expensive and need too money to maintain. 3-they burn refined jet fuel.(high quality kerosene oil) 4-they needed complicated transmittion systems which could start the train and convert turbine shaft high speed output to the wheels. you could refer to USPTO and seach patents concerning to tubotraine to find out problems!
[This message has been edited by jamshid (edited 04-02-2002).]
[This message has been edited by jamshid (edited 04-02-2002).]
Posts: 10 | From: Tehran IRAN | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:they needed comilcated tranmisson systems which could start the train and convert turbine shaft high speed output to the wheels
Well...the new Bombardier locomotive with the Acela Express power-car outer-shell is a turbine-electric, unlike the Rohr's turbine-hydraulic system, so I don't know if any advantages or advances have been garnered...
quote:the problem with diesels is the lack of power...electric trains (for example TGVs or ACELA) could develop 12000 hp for a ligh passenger train! is this aplicable with other modes!
As for power, I'm sure you've heard of General Electric's AC6000—a freight locomotive, to be sure, but most freight diesels started out as dual-service capable with re-gearing. Can't speak for the TGV, but the Acela Express requires two locomotives to develop the 12,000 horsepower (i.e. they're 6,000 horsepower each, the same as an E-60, or, for that matter, an AC6000; that's quite unimpressive compared to the Acela-lookalike single-unit locomotive, the HHP-8 with its 8,000 horsepower, or the newer AEM-7s with 7,000 horsepower). Now, power-to-weight ratios would be a more telling factor...and most US diesels are quite heavy, even passenger diesels; this gets back to the dual-service nature that diesels were designed around initially (witness the many GP-40s that serve and served on passenger services around the US; many remain in service today, with conversions to head-end power); so, it's back to the power-to-weight ratio question once again...with an eye towards reducing locomotive weight, just for starters, because the HP appears to be there (new Genesis P-42s develop 4,200 HP, for example)...
posted
I had a gander at the Train Technology chapter of that study Jamshid posted; after looking at the high-speed (but not "very high-speed" chapter, I found this little blurb on gas-turbine locomotives:
quote:Option 2: Gas Turbine Engines Gas turbines are much smaller and lighter than conventional diesel engines and can achieve higher speeds. Early applications of gas turbine technology were inefficient, consuming almost double the fuel of a conventional diesel engine for a similar power output. During the 1990s, considerable development of gas turbine technology occurred such that modern turbines offer greater fuel and cost efficiency. While acceleration characteristics are somewhat slower than electric versions, [u]the trade-off of lower infrastructure investment cost makes the technology worthy of investigation[/u].
Now...since I probably didn't make myself clear at first, I'm one who'd like to see catenary stretching from NY to Chicago, Florida and even beyond, with TGV and Talgo 350-type trains running coast-to-coast (that is, if I can't get Maglevs, which are reputed to be able to match the speed of jet airliners). The question remains as to how to fund infrastructure costs, and that'll be one of the greatest obstacles for high-speed rail in the US.
The study classifies "very high-speed rail" as in the 185-200+ mph range...although it doesn't cite a gas-turbine locomotive as being capable of such speeds, they are capable of it. The acceleration is still inferior to that of straight-electric...but over longer distances, that can indeed be made up for.
Hmm...and here I thought we were discussing tilt technology characteristics
quote:Originally posted by irishchieftain: The Rohr Turboliner actually burns diesel fuel.
Althoug diesel fuel and jet fuel (very close to kerosene) are close together,but it is intersting Rohr turbines burn diesel fuel which produces Ash! and also i don't think turbine burners need some type lubrication which is needed by diesel injection pumps.(diesel fuel can lubricate barrel and plunger because of its viscosity)
quote:Well...the new Bombardier locomotive with the Acela Express power-car outer-shell is a turbine-electric, unlike the Rohr's turbine-hydraulic system, so I don't know if any advantages or advances have been garnered...
I don't think an Alternator or Generator could be installed directly to a high speed turbine shaft!(ie 15000 to 30000 rpms). if it is, please let me know!
quote:As for power, I'm sure you've heard of General Electric's AC6000—a freight locomotive, to be sure, but most freight diesels started out as dual-service capable with re-gearing. Can't speak for the TGV, but the Acela Express requires two locomotives to develop the 12,000 horsepower (i.e. they're 6,000 horsepower each, the same as an E-60, or, for that matter, an AC6000; that's quite unimpressive compared to the Acela-lookalike single-unit locomotive, the HHP-8 with its 8,000 horsepower, or the newer AEM-7s with 7,000 horsepower). Now, power-to-weight ratios would be a more telling factor...and most US diesels are quite heavy, even passenger diesels; this gets back to the dual-service nature that diesels were designed around initially (witness the many GP-40s that serve and served on passenger services around the US; many remain in service today, with conversions to head-end power); so, it's back to the power-to-weight ratio question once again...with an eye towards reducing locomotive weight, just for starters, because the HP appears to be there (new Genesis P-42s develop 4,200 HP, for example)......
thy are two very different stuffs! (there was a good thread at Railroad.net concerning diffrences between high speed and freight locomotives.unfortunately above site have been demised for a while) there are too many difrences rather than gear ratios! amtrak used converted locomotives for a while but after accidents,they decided to purchace dedicated passenger locomotives... could you remember SP40FS (Rodulphs) and their frequent derailments! but amtrak passenger locomotives (F59PH,P40,P42s) are far from specifications those are needed for high speed trains: 1-Heavy axle load. 2-Axlehung traction motor suspension system. 3-too high buffload capacity. and as a mentioned before the problem remains! compare the weight of a E60C or AC6000 with the weight of an acela power car! consider using two AC6000s instead of two Acela power cars and calculate Power/weigh ratio!
Posts: 10 | From: Tehran IRAN | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:but amtrak passenger locomotives (F59PH,P40,P42s) are far from specifications those are needed for high speed trains
I never said they did meet HSR specs. They're still similar to the B-B dual-service locos that have been around for years, though.
Any thoughts on using body-mounted traction motors on passenger diesels, using driving wheels with diameters of 60 inches or greater...?? (This would require that the drivers be mounted directly to the frame, though, using guiding bogies such as on steam locos...might be nice for an experiment...)
posted
Have a look at this site, this is part of Australia rail network in tropical Queensland. The remarkable thing about this new service is the "tilt" technology & its high speed running on Narrow Guage 3ft 6ins.This train recently established the fastest train speed record in Australia of over 140 MPH, remember this is narrow guage, but on excellent quality track with heavy rails & concrete sleepers(ties)..Mike http://qroti.bit.net.au/traveltrain/tilttrain/Posts: 60 | From: Ballan, Victoria, Australia | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hello Irishchieftain, you don't know the half of it. When the 140 MPH speed record was set, not only did the "tilt train" cross over a graded road crossing(admittedly closed for the test to motorists)but, because, as I said earlier, Queensland is located in the tropical north of Australia, it also had to cross over a one foot "tramway", a part of the extensive sugar cane railway used in north Queensland, which actually crosses over the main north/southline near Bowen, Queensland.
Posts: 60 | From: Ballan, Victoria, Australia | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by irishchieftain: Well...something that's considered sacred in the US is non-interference in the affairs of private companies, at least on the level of their business focus. Amtrak, outside the northeast, runs on private railways whose track and infrastructure is owned by private companies; these private companies are not concerned with how well an Amtrak train runs, only how well their own (freight) trains run, and will gladly hold an Amtrak train on a siding so as to allow their own train passage.
Don't forget that these private comanies all agreed to the running rights of Amtrak as part of the deal for relieving them of passenger operations. Remember this was a highly regulated business and they were not allowed to simply just drop the passenger operations any more than the airlines were allowed to pull out of smaller markets when they were regulated.
If they didn't want to agree to the terms they didn't have to. They shouldn't be allowed to cry fowl now.
Posts: 22 | From: Yardley, PA US | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
Something like this would've been a boon to the D&RGW's three-foot gauge lines, if they were still around in one piece...
[/center]
