8136Re: [carfree_cities] Re: McLanes vs. Train Lanes
- Feb 27, 2005Hey you (fellow) Rail-volutionaries, check this out:
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?
> Od: "J.H. Crawford" <mailbox@...>
> Komu: firstname.lastname@example.org
> 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.
> >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?
> 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.
> -- ### --
> 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 >>