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

Japanese engineers need something to do

Expand Messages
  • CEB
    Hey, guys, there are plenty of places where you could build something useful.... See next to last parapgraph...
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 27, 2005
      Hey, guys, there are plenty of places where you could build something useful....

      See next to last parapgraph...

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4302291.stm


      Todd
      ______________________________________________________________
      > Od: "CEB" <cyklopraha@...>
      > Komu: <carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com>
      > Datum: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 14:07:10 +0100
      > Předmět: Re: [carfree_cities] Re: McLanes vs. Train Lanes
      >
      >
      > One questiont:
      >
      > What is current state of Florida high speed rail project. I know there was a negative vote in November BUT that does mean anything final.
      >
      > Todd
      > ______________________________________________________________
      > > Od: "J.H. Crawford" <mailbox@...>
      > > Komu: carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com
      > > Datum: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 11:40:37 +0000
      > > Předmět: Re: [carfree_cities] Re: McLanes vs. Train Lanes
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > >Well, don't feel too bad. I can't imagine anything you might have
      > > >written could have been more ridiculous than Joel's suggestion that
      > > >non-standard, 9-foot(!) track guage be used to deal with a problem
      > > >solved eons ago by the Japanese, Germans, etc.
      > >
      > > Sorry, I fail to see why a 9-foot gauge is ridiculous.
      > > The Great Western was over 7 feet. This does presume that
      > > solid axles are not used, which is desirable for noise and
      > > rail wear considerations anyway. (The wheels turn independently.)
      > >
      > > >> Finally finally, I am not sure if the IR system has been seriously
      > > >> considered as it should be by the rail industry
      > >
      > > Nobody has considered it seriously, as far as I am aware.
      > >
      > > >Consider the new East Span of the Bay Bridge -- an interesting
      > > >example as the lower deck of the Bay Bridge once carried intercity
      > > >trains. The replacement span, being built to standard Caltrans
      > > >specs, could not possibly support a TGV or ICE train, let alone an
      > > >Acela. At a bare minimum, running trains (i.e. anything other than a
      > > >streetcar) might require the replacement of a lot of overpasses.
      > >
      > > You're assuming conventional rail axle loadings, which can today
      > > exceed 50 tons. The TGV is, according to a posting by Todd, (I think)
      > > is designed for 17 tons, which is still high. However, the US
      > > Interstates operate with 8 ton axles loads already, and the loading
      > > is not distributed by the rail and involves punishing shock loads
      > > which are avoided in the kind of track structure I envision. In any
      > > case, the short-length Talgo-style coaches I would propose can
      > > probably get the axle loadings down to near the current truck
      > > loadings anyway (assuming we get aircraft manufacturers to bring
      > > their knowledge of light weight and extreme reliability to the
      > > problem.
      > >
      > > >There are quite a lot of other problems too. The idea of creating
      > > >train stops at interchanges is problematic because (in the current
      > > >regulatory environment),
      > >
      > > This entire proposal obviously includes sending the FRA back to
      > > the drawing board. It's about time, too (especially given the
      > > comparatively poor rail safety statistics in the USA).
      > >
      > > >train platforms can only be built on level
      > > >ground, which generally is not the case for an over/under-pass.
      > >
      > > Actually, it IS generally the case, if not always. (I'm not talking
      > > about on the cloverleaf section; only the through lanes.)
      > >
      > > >As
      > > >well, I found the so-called freeway standards (12' lanes, exits on
      > > >the right side, etc) to be unrealistic. In most built-up areas,
      > > >these standards are thrown out the window - there are fewer
      > > >shoulders,
      > >
      > > not needed
      > >
      > > >narrower lanes,
      > >
      > > rare on real interstates
      > >
      > > >complicated interchanges, etc.
      > >
      > > definitely an issue
      > >
      > > >And it is
      > > >in the built-up areas where ROW is most valuable.
      > >
      > > certainly
      > >
      > > >In the case of BART, the I580 freeway was designed from the
      > > >beginning to accomodate rail in the median. Nonetheless, the 13 mile
      > > >BART extension to Dublin/Pleasanton still managed to cost over $0.5
      > > >billion -- and that's after the West Dublin station had to be
      > > >dropped due to 100% cost overruns.
      > >
      > > I can't imagine how US cities are having to pay these kinds of
      > > prices. This stuff is not THAT expensive. The only plausible
      > > explanation is that this kind of work is so rare that there are
      > > no economies of scale (nor any standardized equipment--BART
      > > does not use standard gauge).
      > >
      > > This WAS only a proposal and has never been subjected to serious
      > > consideration. I do, however, still think that the idea is at
      > > least worth the trouble of exploring with an open mind. Current
      > > regulatory and technological approaches will kill it immediately.
      > >
      > > 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
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      > 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
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.