Trains.com

California Higher Speed - But is it Still Rail?

3223 views
38 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Tuesday, December 23, 2014 10:24 AM

schlimm

Obviously (to Overmod, at least) it was a typo, a 3 for a 5, given the context of the previous sentence giving Google times in the 5+ hour range.

 

OK.  So, you're saying that there was a typo on your part?  Looks like Overmod was better able to interpret what you meant verses what you wrote. Thanks for clearing that up.  I guess it makes sense now, if you had meant 5 hours and not 3 hours.

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Tuesday, December 23, 2014 9:07 AM

Obviously (to Overmod, at least) it was a typo, a 3 for a 5, given the context of the previous sentence giving Google times in the 5+ hour range.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Monday, December 22, 2014 9:21 PM

schlimm

http://www.wired.com/2014/12/jumpstartfund-hyperloop-elon-musk/

As to the 382 mile drive, Google Map says the time would be 5 hr 28 min. to 5 hr 44.  The speed limit varies, 65 - 70 mph.  The only time I ever drove it, it took 3 hours, 55 minutes, including a 15 minute stop.

 

 schlimm- here's where I'm getting 220 minutes.  You said you drove it in 3 hours, 55 minutes, including a 15 minute stop.

       3x60= 180 minutes
     180+55+ 235 minutes
     235-15= 220 minutes

      What am I missing here?

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,540 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Monday, December 22, 2014 7:22 AM

The jury is still out on Elon Musk's electric cars but I have the feeling that the speculators (I wouldn't call them investors) who bought Tesla shares will live to regret it.  Musk appears to have a blind acceptance of "gee-whiz" technology and its purported ability to advance society.  He also appears to have a blind eye as to what this will cost and where the money will come from.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    November 2005
  • From: Hope, AR
  • 2,061 posts
Posted by narig01 on Sunday, December 21, 2014 9:51 PM
FWIW Column
Elon Musk 's proposal of Hyper Loop is in the category of incredibly, unbelievably, fantastically unbelievable ideas! As in that is as much chance as it has.
One problem about this as with maglev and also airline travel as well, you have to expend energy to lift the vehicle off the ground as well as keep it above the surface underneath. Steel wheel on steel rail technology has consistently proved itself as being the most efficient mode of ground transport. It is also showing with newer technologies to be capable of ever higher speeds.

The best run I have heard about on US highways, Phoenix, Az to West Oakland, Ca in 10 hours and 20 minutes by a convoy of trucks hauling some very very high priority cargo that politicians wanted delivered.

Rgds IGN
  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Sunday, December 21, 2014 9:09 PM

Murphy Siding

 

 
Overmod

 

 
Murphy Siding
382 miles in 220 minutes is 1.737 miles per minute, or 104.22 m.p.h.

 

That's interesting.  But have you noticed that, unless you are using some very unusual conversion factor, your "220 minutes" are not equal to the 5hr 28min to 5hr 44min that schlimm quoted?

The lower time figure works out to just what I'd expect: call it 70mph within the bounds of rounding errors. 

 

 

 

 Sorry I wasn't clearer.  The 220 minutes was a reference to how fast schlimn had driven that route- 3 hours 55 minutes, less a 15 minute stop.

 

 

 
Try doing the math, Murphy Siding, or a calculator, if you cannot do it in your head.  I said 5 hours and 45 minutes, whch is 5hr X 60min in one hour =300 minutes plus 45 min= 345 minutes.  Heaven knows where the 220 minutes came from.
 

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    October 2014
  • 1,644 posts
Posted by Wizlish on Saturday, December 20, 2014 7:45 PM

Murphy Siding
Sorry I wasn't clearer. The 220 minutes was a reference to how fast schlimn had driven that route- 3 hours 55 minutes, less a 15 minute stop.

Sorry, I didn't see that until after you mentioned it.  I was just assuming that 3 was a typo for 5.

I've been down the 15 from the end of 70 down to St. George averaging 114 mph (in a convoy of about 5 vehicles) but that involved some sustained running at decidedly 'statutory reckless driving' speed; not something most cars' limiters would permit.  I suppose in the right car, with the right driving experience (which I presume schlimm would have) it could be done on the 5, if all you counted was the highway mileage and not the 'last miles' at either end.  (And if your Valentine One was working properly...)

I'd like to hear the story of that run, though, if done that fast...

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Saturday, December 20, 2014 7:22 PM

Overmod

 

 
Murphy Siding
382 miles in 220 minutes is 1.737 miles per minute, or 104.22 m.p.h.

 

That's interesting.  But have you noticed that, unless you are using some very unusual conversion factor, your "220 minutes" are not equal to the 5hr 28min to 5hr 44min that schlimm quoted?

The lower time figure works out to just what I'd expect: call it 70mph within the bounds of rounding errors. 

 

 Sorry I wasn't clearer.  The 220 minutes was a reference to how fast schlimn had driven that route- 3 hours 55 minutes, less a 15 minute stop.

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Saturday, December 20, 2014 7:19 PM

schlimm

 

 
Murphy Siding
382 miles in 220 minutes is 1.737 miles per minute, or 104.22 m.p.h. !That's 104.22 m.p.h. average, not taking into account acceleration, deceleration, and the speed of sound / air density factors

 

Many trains (hourly, as I recall) run non-stop from Hamburg to the Berlin Spandau station: 178 miles in 90 minutes, 118 mph.  No big deal on a modern system.

 

  I don't doubt that passenger trains can average that fast.  I was impressed that you were driving that fast.  Were you chasing Smoky and the Bandit?

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,669 posts
Posted by Overmod on Friday, December 19, 2014 7:56 PM

Murphy Siding
382 miles in 220 minutes is 1.737 miles per minute, or 104.22 m.p.h.

That's interesting.  But have you noticed that, unless you are using some very unusual conversion factor, your "220 minutes" are not equal to the 5hr 28min to 5hr 44min that schlimm quoted?

The lower time figure works out to just what I'd expect: call it 70mph within the bounds of rounding errors. 

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Friday, December 19, 2014 7:29 PM

Murphy Siding
382 miles in 220 minutes is 1.737 miles per minute, or 104.22 m.p.h. !That's 104.22 m.p.h. average, not taking into account acceleration, deceleration, and the speed of sound / air density factors

Many trains (hourly, as I recall) run non-stop from Hamburg to the Berlin Spandau station: 178 miles in 90 minutes, 118 mph.  No big deal on a modern system.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 11,013 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Friday, December 19, 2014 5:18 PM

Semper Vaporo
 
oltmannd
 
Victrola1

LA TIMES, JUNE 11, 1972
BEGIN ARTICLE QUOTE"

"L.A. to N.Y. in Half an Hour?
10,000 - M.P.H. Tunnel Train Plan Developed  

http://www.reptoids.com/Vault/Underground/LA2NYnHalfnHour.htm

This sounds much faster.  

There's a section in there "Breaking Generates Power" .  Ouch!

 

 

 

I could almost understand it if it were "regenerative BRAKING", but how to you generate power from "BREAKING" the train?  Maybe they are spliting an atom or two in the process of BREAKING the train?

 

The sad thing is that this was written forty-two years ago--back when a high school graduate should have known the difference between "brake" and "break."

Johnny

  • Member since
    April 2007
  • From: Iowa
  • 3,293 posts
Posted by Semper Vaporo on Friday, December 19, 2014 4:43 PM

oltmannd
 
Victrola1

LA TIMES, JUNE 11, 1972
BEGIN ARTICLE QUOTE"

"L.A. to N.Y. in Half an Hour?
10,000 - M.P.H. Tunnel Train Plan Developed  

http://www.reptoids.com/Vault/Underground/LA2NYnHalfnHour.htm

This sounds much faster.  

There's a section in there "Breaking Generates Power" .  Ouch!

 

I could almost understand it if it were "regenerative BRAKING", but how to you generate power from "BREAKING" the train?  Maybe they are spliting an atom or two in the process of BREAKING the train?

Semper Vaporo

Pkgs.

  • Member since
    July 2003
  • From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
  • 13,757 posts
Posted by cacole on Friday, December 19, 2014 3:57 PM

But how many years and trillions of dollars would it cost to build such a system?  Tunneling under the Mississippi and other major waterways, and the Rocky Mountains?

 

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Friday, December 19, 2014 3:48 PM

Victrola1

LA TIMES, JUNE 11, 1972
BEGIN ARTICLE QUOTE"

"L.A. to N.Y. in Half an Hour?
10,000 - M.P.H. Tunnel Train Plan Developed  

http://www.reptoids.com/Vault/Underground/LA2NYnHalfnHour.htm

This sounds much faster. 

 

  Holy cow Batman!  That transcontinental adventure will carry 7 to 8 million tons of freight per day, in addition to passengers!  If that much freight was on a freight train it would be- what? 70,000 cars at 60(?) feet long equals 795 miles of freight cars, plus another 40 miles of locomotives.

     Of course, that would be split, half going east, half going west.  The article says that trains would leave at one minute intervals.  There are 1440 minutes in a day.   835 miles of train, divided in half is 2,204,400 feet of trains.  Divide that by 1440 minutes, and you have a 1531 foot long train departing every 60 seconds.  You also have a 1531 foot long train arriving every 60 seconds. 

     The yard facilities at each end would be impressive, especially once you take into consideration that the freight and/or people have to be moved to/from a different form of transportation at the end points. 

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 11,013 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Friday, December 19, 2014 2:14 PM

Victrola1

LA TIMES, JUNE 11, 1972
BEGIN ARTICLE QUOTE"

"L.A. to N.Y. in Half an Hour?
10,000 - M.P.H. Tunnel Train Plan Developed  

http://www.reptoids.com/Vault/Underground/LA2NYnHalfnHour.htm

This sounds much faster. 

 

Quite interesting. But, I wonder what is broken to return power to the system--"Breaking Generates Power."

Did trolley cars use regenerative breaking?

Johnny

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Friday, December 19, 2014 2:12 PM

Victrola1

LA TIMES, JUNE 11, 1972
BEGIN ARTICLE QUOTE"

"L.A. to N.Y. in Half an Hour?
10,000 - M.P.H. Tunnel Train Plan Developed  

http://www.reptoids.com/Vault/Underground/LA2NYnHalfnHour.htm

This sounds much faster. 

 

There's a section in there "Breaking Generates Power" .  Ouch!

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Friday, December 19, 2014 2:09 PM

54light15

I dunno, I kind of like the idea of a supersonic bus. Really, what could go wrong? But there was a movie where a bus had to keep it's speed above 50, if it dropped below 50 it would explode! I think the movie was called "The Bus That Couldn't Slow Down."

 

The movie was "Speed".  

And then there's this: HSB

 

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    December 2008
  • From: Toronto, Canada
  • 2,560 posts
Posted by 54light15 on Friday, December 19, 2014 2:07 PM

I dunno, I kind of like the idea of a supersonic bus. Really, what could go wrong? But there was a movie where a bus had to keep it's speed above 50, if it's speed dropped below 50 it would explode! I think the movie was called "The Bus That Couldn't Slow Down."

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • 1,486 posts
Posted by Victrola1 on Friday, December 19, 2014 1:39 PM

LA TIMES, JUNE 11, 1972
BEGIN ARTICLE QUOTE"

"L.A. to N.Y. in Half an Hour?
10,000 - M.P.H. Tunnel Train Plan Developed  

http://www.reptoids.com/Vault/Underground/LA2NYnHalfnHour.htm

This sounds much faster. 

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Friday, December 19, 2014 1:24 PM

schlimm

http://www.wired.com/2014/12/jumpstartfund-hyperloop-elon-musk/

As to the 382 mile drive, Google Map says the time would be 5 hr 28 min. to 5 hr 44.  The speed limit varies, 65 - 70 mph.  The only time I ever drove it, it took 3 hours, 55 minutes, including a 15 minute stop.

 

  382 miles in 220 minutes is 1.737 miles per minute, or 104.22 m.p.h. !That's 104.22 m.p.h. average, not taking into account acceleration, deceleration, and the speed of sound / air density factors. Mischief

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • 1,486 posts
Posted by Victrola1 on Friday, December 19, 2014 1:13 PM

The group is still a long way from actually producing a working Hyperloop, but it's already made serious progress on how an eventual system might look. The group envisions three classes — economy, business and freight — with dozens of possible routes across the US. The group is also looking into improvements on the initial design. "In the initial white paper, air has the advantage that it's cheap, but it also has problems with control," says CEO Dirk Ahlborn. If another medium performs better in testing, it will be easy to switch. After initial financial projections, the cost for the trans-California route is expected to fall between $7 and $16 billion — a good deal higher than Musk's initial estimate of $6 billion, but still a bargain compared to existing rail projects. "The biggest thing for me is the price," says Ahlborn. "We know it's not going to cost $50 billion — we know we're in a range that works."

http://www.theverge.com/2014/12/18/7418387/the-slow-humble-return-of-the-hyperloop

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Friday, December 19, 2014 1:03 PM

http://www.wired.com/2014/12/jumpstartfund-hyperloop-elon-musk/

As to the 382 mile drive, Google Map says the time would be 5 hr 28 min. to 5 hr 44.  The speed limit varies, 65 - 70 mph.  The only time I ever drove it, it took 3 hours, 55 minutes, including a 15 minute stop.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Friday, December 19, 2014 11:55 AM

Murphy Siding
To make the 383 mile trip in 30 minutes, you'd have to be going 760 m.p.h. for the entire distance.  Or, since the speed would be 0 m.p.h. at each end, I suppose you could go an average of 760 m.p.h.

Depends on the acceleration rate.  Transit and trains count on no more than 0.1g (2-3 mph/sec).  If you're all strapped in, maybe you could do a half g or better or so in the tube - lets call it 15 mph/sec - Corvette performance.  It would take about a minute and 5 miles to get to 760 mph. So the total trip would be 31.5 minutes.

If you used 3 mph/sec, it would be four minutes and 25 miles to 760 mph.  Total trip time would be less than 35 minutes.

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    October 2012
  • 225 posts
Posted by DS4-4-1000 on Friday, December 19, 2014 11:21 AM

oltmannd
Murphy SidingThe article says speeds up to 760 m.p.h. Isn't that breaking the sound barrier? The tube is going to be mostly evacuated, so the speed of sound will be much higher. (the lower the air density, the higher the speed of sound)

The speed of sound in air is virtually independent of pressure.  It is much more dependent on temperature and humidity.  Look up speed of sound in Wiki.

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Friday, December 19, 2014 11:09 AM

Murphy Siding
The article says speeds up to 760 m.p.h.  Isn't that breaking the sound barrier?

The tube is going to be mostly evacuated, so the speed of sound will be much higher.  (the lower the air density, the higher the speed of sound)

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Friday, December 19, 2014 11:07 AM

Wizlish
Engineered by architecture students. What could go wrong?

That caught my ears, too.  

It will look pretty!  At best, it won't run.  At worst, people die.

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    April 2007
  • From: Iowa
  • 3,293 posts
Posted by Semper Vaporo on Friday, December 19, 2014 1:13 AM

The question you posed in the subject line has me intrigued... if there is no rail then it it "rail".  I'd say no.  But then if it is a single vehicle... is it a "train".  I think maybe they are actually proposing a highspeed "BUS" that uses it own private "road".

Semper Vaporo

Pkgs.

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Thursday, December 18, 2014 10:34 PM

schlimm

 

 
YoHo1975
LA to SF in 6 hours? There is no day nor time when that is possible....legally.
 

 

 

383 miles on the 5.  6 hours = average speed of 64 mph.  Driving at 70 mph is hardly impossible.   

 

  Possible, perhaps.  Is it legal?  What is the speed limit in California?

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy