8126Re: [carfree_cities] McLanes vs. Train Lanes
- Feb 27, 2005______________________________________________________________
> Od: "J.H. Crawford" <mailbox@...>Todd - I THINK I had misunderstood the basic principles involved, but this helps.
> Komu: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Datum: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 11:48:14 +0000
> Předmět: Re: [carfree_cities] McLanes vs. Train Lanes
> Hi All,
> Todd said:
> >Aside from things I simply didnt know, I think my only mistake was the
> >suggestion of the necessit of tilting trains.
> >The fact that the tracks would
> >already be tilted would make that unnecessary it seems (unless tilted tracks
> >are much more expensive than non-tilted ones).
> I never suggested tilt-body trains. They don't help much. The real
> issue in curve negotiation is wheel climb--the flange of the outer
> wheel climbs up over the rail and you're in big trouble. I've never
> seen how tilt-body trains are any better in this regard than regular.
> They ARE more comfortable for the passengers, but the degree of
> lateral acceleration is already not high. Unlimited superelevation
> can allow fast running in a "balanced" condition, where there is
> NO lateral force on the rails (unless the train comes to a stop
> between stations, a circumstance that must be considered from the
> >Then again Joel mentions thatTodd - I was only making a joke that your book would fall out of the train because it is tilted too much (but if this happened in between stations it could be a good thing as the people who would live in between stations are probably in need of a book like that. People who walk along train tracks and look for stuff are cool.)
> >the tilts of tracks are limited so we dont have oranges and copies of his
> >new book etc.
> This is not treated at all in the next book. Superelevation is
> only limited in conventional practice because of the limitations
> of conventional freight trains, which would not be allowed on
> this system (overhead clearances are too low to permit it anyway).
> >Also, I mentioned that the ICE3 trains have more power to go up steeperTodd: I am only paraphrasing some things I have read about the ICE 3 from an older issue of Railvolution and more recently from the unofficial ICE website - http://www.railfaneurope.net/ice/ice.html - which talked about every other car having a powered bogie and then - I think -stating that is what made the steep grade ascent possible (I think also lightweight trains, much much much lighter than Acela, like you wouldnt believe!)
> >grades, this is because they are in fact EMUs (Electric multiple units) and
> >have propulsion units spread throughout the train.
> This is interesting. Do you have any statistics on this, Todd?
>Todd: NO, less mobility!!!! Access, access, access!!! :-)
> >I suppose the only caveat in all this if people actually want to tear down
> >the freeways. That is unlikely but I would hate to see a so-called freeway
> >being preserved - with all of its negative effects aside from traffic -
> >because the railway lobby wants it.
> No, this is not such a sad thing. If there are ever no cars to
> run on the freeways, we'll probably need at least four lanes
> to handle the rail traffic. Remember that really heavily used
> rail lines, like the Pennsy in northern NJ, need to be SIX tracks
> wide. This is fairly rare, but it does arise.
> -- ### --
> J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
> mailbox@... http://www.carfree.com
> To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@...
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: carfree_cities-unsubscribe@...
> Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/
> Yahoo! Groups Links
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>