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
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
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.
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....
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.
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.
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...
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.
-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)
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...
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...
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).]
quote:
they burn refined jet fuel
The Rohr Turboliner actually burns diesel fuel.
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)...
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.
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...
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)......
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...)
Hope this pic displays; it shows a Queensland Tilt Train going over a grade crossing (yikes)...
[center] [/center]
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.