Martin <[email protected]> wrote:

    > On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 14:32:03 +0100, [email protected]
    > (chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco 24h
    > offy) wrote:
[]
    > >Well, I was referring specifically to the UK, where there is certainly
    > >padding in the schedules, but in fact most of the tracks wouldn't really
    > >be suitable for the trains going faster than they currently do. The
    > >Pendolino trains in the UK can go at about 136 mph, but I don't believe
    > >they're allowed to go faster than around 125mph, and only then on
    > >certain portions of the track.
    >
    > Doesn't the Pendolino suffer similar problems to the UK attempt to
    > build something similar 25 years ago? Cue Punch cartoon of man peeing
    > on the toilet wall as train goes around a tight bend.

The Pendolino runs on the upgraded tracks fine. The initial problem IIRC
was that it was taking longer than expected to upgrade the track, so it
was still running at slower speeds- and it's no longer planned to run at
the full speeds the train is capable of. The tilting is pretty nice,
actually- and pretty comfortable. There's still a problem with the
toilets whiffing a little, as with the Virgin Voyagers, but that's
nothing to do with the speed or the tilting of the trains- just bad
design! Referring to an earlier post of yours, I personally don't mind
it running at the speeds it currently does- I don't see the point in
spending billions of pounds to shave, say, an extra 15 minutes of the
journey time between London and Manchester, especially as the train is
already by far the fastest way of getting from city centre to centre,
and has been for the last few decades.

--
David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
photos at http://homepage.mac.com/davidhornecomposer

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 17:33:46 +0200, Erick T. Barkhuis
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >Martin [on Sat, 17 Sep 2005 17:28:58 +0200] wrote:
    >> On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 11:26:53 -0400, "James Silverton"
    >> <not.jim.silverton.at.comcast.net> wrote:
    >> > I can agree that encouraging such trains
    >> >is in the national interest and ecologically sound.
    >> Why are they ecologically sound?
    >Because they don't burn any gas.

Not directly. That doesn't make them ecologically sound.
What about all the non-green energy consumed in making the rolling
stock, tracks, over head cables, bridges etc. and the idiotic HSL
tunnel for the Dutch eco freaks.
--
Martin

Martin writes:

    > We had every year we had a 3 week summer holiday in Brittany in the
    > late 1980 and early 1990s. It was not uncommon for the TGV to get
    > stuck when the pantograph thing came off the overhead wires. There was
    > some sort of problem of waves building up in the wires when the train
    > travelled at speed.

The pressure of the pantograph on the catenary produces a wave of
movement in the catenary that travels ahead of the train. Early in
the history of the TGV, it was noticed that the TGV travelled quickly
enough to catch up with this wave, which occasionally disturbed the
contact between the pantograph and the catenary or even caused the
damage (IIRC). The problem was solved by increasing the tension on
the catenary, which speeds up the wave until it moves faster than the
train.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Martin writes:

    > IMO railways misuse money by spending a small fortune on a few high
    > speed train routes instead of improving the overall average speed of
    > most routes.

At least in France, a relatively small part of the network carries the
great majority of the traffic, so money spend on high-speed
right-of-way isn't necessarily wasted.

The TGV requires special right-of-way to reach its maximum speed in
normal service. Where this ROW is not available, it is limited to
speeds often no more than slightly greater than those of other trains.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 17:48:01 +0200, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >Martin writes:
    >> We had every year we had a 3 week summer holiday in Brittany in the
    >> late 1980 and early 1990s. It was not uncommon for the TGV to get
    >> stuck when the pantograph thing came off the overhead wires. There was
    >> some sort of problem of waves building up in the wires when the train
    >> travelled at speed.
    >The pressure of the pantograph on the catenary produces a wave of
    >movement in the catenary that travels ahead of the train. Early in
    >the history of the TGV, it was noticed that the TGV travelled quickly
    >enough to catch up with this wave, which occasionally disturbed the
    >contact between the pantograph and the catenary or even caused the
    >damage (IIRC). The problem was solved by increasing the tension on
    >the catenary, which speeds up the wave until it moves faster than the
    >train.

The problem still existed a year ago, AFAIR in hot weather.
--
Martin

James Silverton writes:

    > I like fast train travel especially for distances of 200 to 500
    > miles (300-800km) and I can agree that encouraging such trains
    > is in the national interest and ecologically sound. However, can
    > anyone tell me if any cost analysis shows that the fares charged
    > are sufficient to maintain the trains, special tracks and debt
    > service?

High-speed trains using conventional motive power are only slightly
more expensive to operate and maintain than lower-speed trains, AFAIK.
Energy requirements are a substantial component of the operating cost
(which is one reason why TGV trains don't run any faster than they do,
even though they are capable of much higher speeds).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Martin writes:

    > Why are they ecologically sound?

They require far less energy than most other types of transportation.
Steel wheels on steel rails are very energy efficient. The form of a
train is extremely aerodynamic. Electrical motive power can use
electricity generated by any means, including ecologically safe means.
Trains also produce less noise and occupy less space than roads or
airports or aircraft, and they require less maintenance, and they are
extremely safe, and they can handle very heavy loads. Most trains are
electric, so they produce no air pollution directly.

The aeroport at CDG-Roissy occupies more space than the entire TGV
Sud-Ouest line.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 17:50:23 +0200, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >Martin writes:
    >> IMO railways misuse money by spending a small fortune on a few high
    >> speed train routes instead of improving the overall average speed of
    >> most routes.
    >At least in France, a relatively small part of the network carries the
    >great majority of the traffic, so money spend on high-speed
    >right-of-way isn't necessarily wasted.

It is on 100 km of track that makes little difference to the overall
time, especially for those, who have to first travel to a connecting
station to catch the Thalys. It includes a 7km long tunnel, that runs
near and parallel to a busy motorway, built to avoid noise pollution.
--
Martin

Martin [on Sat, 17 Sep 2005 17:39:35 +0200] wrote:
    > On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 17:33:46 +0200, Erick T. Barkhuis
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >Martin [on Sat, 17 Sep 2005 17:28:58 +0200] wrote:
    > >> Why are they ecologically sound?
    > >
    > >Because they don't burn any gas.
    >
    > Not directly. That doesn't make them ecologically sound.

Huh?

    > What about all the non-green energy consumed in making the rolling
    > stock, tracks, over head cables, bridges etc. and the idiotic HSL
    > tunnel for the Dutch eco freaks.

Those plants are not ecologically sound. But your question was about the
trains themselves.


--
Low Countries By Bike - http://lowcountriesbybike.ardane.com
Riding on two wheels in Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany

Martin writes:

    > The problem still existed a year ago, AFAIR in hot weather.

Possibly. The weather is becoming hotter than it has ever been
before, so new problems may arise.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Martin writes:

    > What about all the non-green energy consumed in making the rolling
    > stock, tracks, over head cables, bridges etc. and the idiotic HSL
    > tunnel for the Dutch eco freaks.

Rolling stock can easily last for decades with minimal maintenance.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 17:55:19 +0200, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >Martin writes:
    >> Why are they ecologically sound?
    >They require far less energy than most other types of transportation.
    >Steel wheels on steel rails are very energy efficient.

Making steel isn't ecologically friendly.

    >The form of a
    >train is extremely aerodynamic. Electrical motive power can use
    >electricity generated by any means, including ecologically safe means.
    >Trains

We are discussing TGV type trains not any old train.


    >also produce less noise

Odd that the Dutch find it necessary to bury the TGV in a tunnel to
avoid noise pollution.

    >and occupy less space than roads or
    >airports or aircraft,

High speed trains carry substantially less passengers than a motor
way.

    > and they require less maintenance, and they are
    >extremely safe, and they can handle very heavy loads. Most trains are
    >electric, so they produce no air pollution directly.

Directly!!!

    >The aeroport at CDG-Roissy occupies more space than the entire TGV
    >Sud-Ouest line.

Have you tried getting to Australia with the TGV.?

--
Martin

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 18:02:45 +0200, Erick T. Barkhuis
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >Martin [on Sat, 17 Sep 2005 17:39:35 +0200] wrote:
    >> On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 17:33:46 +0200, Erick T. Barkhuis
    >> <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >> >Martin [on Sat, 17 Sep 2005 17:28:58 +0200] wrote:
    >> >> Why are they ecologically sound?
    >> >
    >> >Because they don't burn any gas.
    >>
    >> Not directly. That doesn't make them ecologically sound.
    >Huh?

Dutch power stations burn gas and cheap sulphurous coal to generate
electricity to run the trains.

    >> What about all the non-green energy consumed in making the rolling
    >> stock, tracks, over head cables, bridges etc. and the idiotic HSL
    >> tunnel for the Dutch eco freaks.
    >Those plants are not ecologically sound. But your question was about the
    >trains themselves.

Moving the location of the pollution doesn't stop the pollution.



--
Martin

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 18:04:53 +0200, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >Martin writes:
    >> The problem still existed a year ago, AFAIR in hot weather.
    >Possibly. The weather is becoming hotter than it has ever been
    >before, so new problems may arise.

AFAIR the problem mainly occurred in hot weather 20 years ago.
--
Martin

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 18:05:43 +0200, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >Martin writes:
    >> What about all the non-green energy consumed in making the rolling
    >> stock, tracks, over head cables, bridges etc. and the idiotic HSL
    >> tunnel for the Dutch eco freaks.
    >Rolling stock can easily last for decades with minimal maintenance.

and the occasional disastrous train crash as has been proved.

What about all the non-green energy used?
--
Martin