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

8136Re: [carfree_cities] Re: McLanes vs. Train Lanes

Expand Messages
  • CEB
    Feb 27, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Hey you (fellow) Rail-volutionaries, check this out:

      http://www.modtrain.com/

      Reform, I suppose, if not revolution.

      Maybe we should muscle or otherwise integrate our way into their discussion.

      Hey E, we know where Joel and I come from, how bout you?

      Todd



      ______________________________________________________________
      > Od: "J.H. Crawford" <mailbox@...>
      > Komu: carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com
      > Datum: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 22:50:57 +0000
      > Předmět: Re: [carfree_cities] Re: McLanes vs. Train Lanes
      >
      >
      >
      > I guess what isn't clear here is that I'm proposing a blank-sheet
      > re-start of railroading. Get rid of all the problems that have
      > plagued the industry since its beginnings 180 years ago.
      >
      > So:
      >
      > >Except that it would involve running custom-built (i.e. more
      > >expensive) rolling stock that is utterly incompatible with the rest
      > >of the world. But yeah, other than that...
      >
      > All of this rolling stock is going to be completely custom built.
      > If it's done right, we'll build more perfectly-identical passenger
      > coaches than the sum total of all passenger coaches ever built in
      > the USA. We're talking tens of thousands of absolutely identical
      > train sets.
      >
      > >> It permits independently suspended wheels right
      > >> out at the edges of the coaches, allowing passage through the
      > >> train without steps--just articulate the coaches
      > >
      > >You mean like this?
      > >
      > >http://www.railfaneurope.net/pix/de/metro/Berlin/large_profile/u-
      > >bahn-H-innen.jpg
      > >
      > >http://www.railfaneurope.net/pix/es/metro/Madrid/Metro-M-1865.jpg
      >
      > Yes, except that the whole section of the coach in way of the
      > wheels doesn't have to be pinched in at floor level in order
      > to accommodate the wheels (assuming these are low-floor units).
      > We're not going to do high-floor units because the platforms
      > cost too much and the frontal area of the trains is too great
      > and the underbody too ragged for good air flow.
      >
      > >The reason why the Boeing LRT's were such a disaster, and BART cars
      > >spend 25% of the time in the shop, is because an aircraft
      > >manufacturer has none of the experience or institutional knowledge
      > >for building rail vehicles. So, if you were to try again at having
      > >an aerospace company build rail cars, the same result seems
      > >inevitable. Or, to put it another way: Would you buy an automobile
      > >from Honda or Lockheed? (Ok, maybe a bad example for this listserv.)
      >
      > But we have the problem that rail vehicle manufacturers have
      > never understood the need for light weight (except Alsthom,
      > I believe, which builds the TGVs). And I'm afraid they have
      > never understood the need for reliability, either.
      >
      > >> We really DO need light weight, and we really DO need high
      > >> reliability. Historically, only airplanes have this characteristic.
      > >
      > >That simply isn't true. Lots of industries know how to build with
      > >aluminum and carbon fiber. On the other hand, not too many know the
      > >intricacies of ATC, signaling, bogies, and general rail
      > >infrastructure issues.
      >
      > So, we pair the remains of AdTranz with AirBus. Or Boeing with
      > the remains of Budd.
      >
      > Remember, conventional rail manufacturers are going to have to
      > figure this stuff out too, because the environment is going to
      > be completely different from anything they've ever seen. Nobody
      > in the rail business is familiar with mounting 6% grades at high
      > speed. Nobody knows about running trains around fairly sharp
      > curves at high speed in a fully-balanced condition. Nobody has
      > built high-speed equipment that is independently suspended.
      >
      > This is not a timid venture. We're throwing out all the rules.
      > We're throwing out the FRA. We're going to do it all over again,
      > this time right. We'll be shooting for passenger safety that's
      > at least an order of magnitude better than anything that's ever
      > been achieved.
      >
      > 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