Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

8126Re: [carfree_cities] McLanes vs. Train Lanes

Expand Messages
  • CEB
    Feb 27, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      > Od: "J.H. Crawford" <mailbox@...>
      > Komu: carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com
      > 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
      > outset).

      Todd - I THINK I had misunderstood the basic principles involved, but this helps.

      > >Then again Joel mentions that
      > >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).

      Todd - 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.)

      > >Also, I mentioned that the ICE3 trains have more power to go up steeper
      > >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: 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!)
      > >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.

      Todd: NO, less mobility!!!! Access, access, access!!! :-)


      > Regards,
      > -- ### --
      > 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
    • Show all 24 messages in this topic