QUOTE: Originally posted by martin.knoepfel european freight trains are quite short, because the screw couplers do not allow for heavier trains. otherwise, you have to cut in additional locomotives (radio-controlled). unfortunately, the euro-coupler was never introduced although it works. in britain, they run some freight trains (stone) at 100 mph, I guess, to avoid delaying passenger trains. the germans run some freight trains at this speed to on high-speed-corridors. the french have trains with refrigerator-cars (fruit and vegetables) for 90 oder 100mph.
QUOTE: Originally posted by trainfinder22 The best way to not a crash is to prevent one. CTC and real time dispatching systems using GPS to tell the tower where the trains are at all times means that passenger and freight CAN run together
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
QUOTE: Originally posted by 440cuin FRA ? When was the last time a passenger train in the USA crashed and killed 100 people? When was the last time a passenger train in Europe crashed and killed 100 people? In Japan ?
QUOTE: Originally posted by martin.knoepfel the 100mph stone trains were operated by foster yeoman. when wisconsin central took over part of the british rail system, they were quite surprised thise was possible. I don't exactly remember were I read it, but it was most probably "trains".
QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan Speaking of conjestion and the U.K. Clapham Junction supposedly runs 2500 trains a day.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Overmod There's nothing about the inherent design of the American 'three-piece freight truck' that prevents high speed... it needs different and better damping. Look at the trucks on the MHCs, for example. Much of the "multiple suspension" requirement on passenger cars has to do with improving ride quality as perceived by the passengers, or implementing better carbody tilt or roll control; these are of far less importance on freight equipment. The equalization characteristics of three-piece trucks are inherently excellent; if I recall correctly, some of the early UP streamliners used Taylor-style trucks (which are essentially a glorified three-piece design). There are ways to implement longitudinal damping (e.g. viscous coupling) between the bolster and carbody pivots, which will interrupt the kinds of resonance causing the yaw component of hunting (and which are not difficult to retrofit to existing designs of rolling stock). Torque struts and rods can be used from bolster to sideframes if desired, or across the ends of the truck between sideframes (with rubber bushings at each end) if more force attenuation is desired in any plane of truck action. In the past, it's been desirable to use a longer truck wheelbase for stability, but this inherently causes greater wheel (and track) wear on curves. There have been designs for steerable freight bogies, but the cost and maintenance limitations on these (and the fact that most types don't 'fail safe' if their linkages fail or are bent) will clearly restrict their use in interchange service until a 'critical mass' of parts, service locations, know-how and general awareness has built up. Braking becomes a much more critical factor than dynamic stability at speeds much above 60mph -- remember that kinetic energy roughly doubles between 60 and 80mph. Imho single-acting tread brakes don't cut it... and the logical alternative, cheek-plate disc braking, is expensive and somewhat difficult to apply to these trucks and, perhaps more importantly, traditional American chilled wheel profiles. (For example, applying the disc to the wheel both requires location points, which are stress raisers, and hides the wheel face behind the disc, which makes inspection for cracks and defects originating from those raisers difficult to detect) My opinion is that some form of multiple center-of-axle disc brake, similar in principle to that applied to passenger cars, may be the answer (with the caliper floating vertically, on a bracket close to the truck bolster, which helps absorb torque displacement of the sideframes on braking, and allows use of conventional carbody-mounted brake cylinders and reach rods) -- I've checked with the wheel shop adjacent to the Arkansas Railroad Museum and they see little objective difficulty in sourcing and servicing brake discs at the time wheelsets are renewed. I might add (plug) that I've developed in principle a system to implement semi-ECP braking on standard interchange freight consists, using devices similar to FREDs that connect into the train line at intervals and use buff-and-draft sensors that fit between couplers. This was originally intended to make fast-acting PTC workable on long freight consists, but is perfectly suited for the high-speed service that PTC and PTS would make legal... It might be desirable to put some additional castings or fittings on the trucks, for example to keep the sideframes from separating from the bolsters and wheel bearing casings after impacts or derailments. I believe that tension straps of modern materials could accompli***his easily (and be relatively easy safety retrofits to existing trucks, too, which expands the market and brings down effective marginal cost). But none of this stuff (while it *is* at least in part derived from rocket science) is particularly difficult, or requires expensive capitalization that only applies to boutique high-speed service. In my opinion, air resistance constitutes a logical economic upper bound to most freight service speed well below the critical speed of three-piece truck designs with proper detailing...
QUOTE: Originally posted by Overmod FM, the classical definition I learned for 'hunting' many years ago was a coupled resultant of nosing (which is yaw) and rolling. I have since seen many people apply the term more to the observed yaw component and its effects, but it is helpful to recognize in some cases that 'pumping' from loading and unloading of the suspension can drive some of the oscillation. The ForeRunner and its ilk do tend to be difficult to induce because their effective polar moment of inertia is enormous and their primary suspension is usually very closely constrained to keep the axles normal to the chassis; to the extent that the axle can yaw relative to the carbody, it's mostly 'shear' force taken by the springs, and that ain't usually much imho. Now, you have a consequence with the longer rigid wheelbase, which is greater prospective wear (for a given equal axle loading) of the tread profile, greater incidence of flange contact on sharp curves, more possible racking on transitions or laterally uneven track, etc. There is no equalization between axles, so we're back in the 1820s again in that respect. IN PRINCIPLE, I favor the 1950s idea of using separate wheels, able to turn at independent rates on the same axle, as was done on some of the lightweight passenger train designs, for single-container, four-wheel cars. I did some preliminary work on single-axle Talgo-style articulated container sets, but haven't pursued that approach lately. I recognize the implicit problems with bearings, lube, maintenance, suspension when the independent-wheel approach is used, but it does eliminate some of the problems that would otherwise require full proportional radial steering ... difficult with 36' wheelbase! -- to deal with.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.