Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator oltmannd: thanks :) futuremodal: To beat trucks it would suffice to have avg 60-70 mph shuttle trains _for trucks_. On long routes this would allow truck companies to save on drivers (when the truck is shipped the driver may doze off - thus he is not needing a change). With 60 mph speed it would beat trucking hands down. Simple solution: rr has let us say - Chi-LA route with 20 stops. On each stop truckers load/unload on the train and doze off when the train is in motion. Kind of like LD passanger trains - but for trucks. For that you just need to scrounge Amtrak some P42's :p and run at 79 mph max. But if you want to run 100+ mph freight for perishables and high-value stuff (mail, electronics, valuables, some UPS/FedEx stuff) then wired trailroad is the only way to go. Altho hybrid turbine _might_ be an interesting solution.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
QUOTE: Originally posted by O.S. Don: Mode B Ed: Sounds like someone just hit the circuit.
QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator oltmannd: Really? Interesting? Out of sheer curiosity - how do these speeds corelate with dwell time then? For example - if a train goes from point 1, to point 2, where it waits for 4 hours, then from point 2 to point 3 - where it waits for 6 hours and gets power swap and extra cars at the end then proceeds to point 4 - the avg speed is considered when the train moves or as its scheduled origin-dst distance and time? Including all stops and possible alterations?
QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator Not quite. For now the fastest diesel was circa 170 mph (again - russian loco :p). Problem is the fact that 125 mph diesel freight would be really expensive fuel-wise. Wires help here thanks to the regeneration. Also - each 5500 hp (such as sd90mac*) diesel is ~150-190 tons you need to haul around - this takes payload space. And since for 80+ mph service you need tons of power - diesels would quickly become too expensive to run. With current technology 12000 hp 6-axle loco, with 15000-17000hp short term rating is quite possible. So - possible with diesels? Yes (Burlington Zephyrs did run 100+ mph didn't they... in 1935). Economical - not bloody likely. *note - this is _at rail_ rating.
QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator Acelas are waayyy overpowered - even for such an overweight train it is. Single power car in a push-pull configuration could keep the timetable as well as double power-cars now. Remember that Acela was designed to haul 12-14 coaches. As for power requirements. If you have the wire above you then power is a minor issue. Russians have 12700 hp locos (single section, they also have triple section 3VL85 with 18600 hp :p) wich runs at 125 mph. With regenerative braking a good deal of power can be sent back to the wire. The issue is capital cost of electrification. Because frankly - diesels are not so good for speeds above 100 mph.
Have fun with your trains
23 17 46 11
QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox Dave re "If you had, you'd know that those other modes have had to pay for the infrastructure for the most part provided through user fees". I do not beleve you can find any inependant study that shows truckers or water carriers do or do not pay taxes equal to the cost of their government provided ROW. An independent study means a study paid for by someone without a vested interst in the outcome. Studies by the AAR, ATA, AWO, etc. do not count. :) If you know of such a study share the citation with the rest of us.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.