"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote
    > weather is becoming hotter than it has ever been
    > before,

More wild generalisation from the Mixologist!

Alan (in Brussels) wrote:
    > "Martin" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 05:48:09 -0700, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > > >In article <[email protected] .com>,
    > > ><[email protected]> wrote:
    > > >
    > > >> Martin wrote:
    > > >> > On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 05:56:24 -0400, "Robert J Carpenter"
    > > >> > <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > >> >
    > > >> > >Does the track along side an Autostrada? I recall that a train from
    > > >> > >Firenze to Rome ran beside one and the cars were going faster than
    > the
    > > >> > >train.
    > > >> >
    > > >> > The cars go faster than the trains in the Netherlands too, when they
    > > >> > aren't in a traffic jam :-)
    > > >>
    > > >> They still go faster than Thalys, since it spends half its life sitting
    > > >> in the middle of a field.
    > > >
    > > >That is what happened to me, but then we went in reverse for about 30
    > > >min... they said they will have their own tracks in 2008... we were
    > > >50min late on the Paris-> Amsterdam run.
    > >
    > > How long did it take?
    > >
    > > AFAIR the TEE used to take about 5 hours but run on time in the
    > > nineteen sixties.
    > In my experience the Thalys either runs very close to time, or is
    > dramatically late (eg when it loses its path on tracks shared with other
    > rail traffic). Although the last three km of new track into Brussels Midi is
    > still under construction, yesterday I saw one arrive there 6 mins ahead of
    > the very tight schedule (1h25 min) from Paris Nord! But I've occasionally
    > seen Thalys running over an hour late here. A substantial acceleration
    > to/from the Netherlands will be obtained next year when the new through
    > tunnel (Berchem - Luchtbal) under Antwerp Central station opens.

    >From Paris to Brussels it usually seems OK, but recently it has been
regularly half an hour late arriving in Paris, usually due to lateness
in Holland.

G;

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 16:49:03 GMT, "No Spam"
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote
    >> weather is becoming hotter than it has ever been
    >> before,
    >More wild generalisation from the Mixologist!

His opinions on global warming are strongly influenced by 24/24 all
year round central heating and his string underwear.

It's only a matter of time before he appears on the BBC series 'No
waste like home'.
--
Martin

    >>> >> They still go faster than Thalys, since it spends half its life
    >>> >> sitting
    >>> >> in the middle of a field.
    >>> >
    >>> >That is what happened to me, but then we went in reverse for about 30
    >>> >min... they said they will have their own tracks in 2008... we were
    >>> >50min late on the Paris-> Amsterdam run.
    >>> How long did it take?
    >>4:55.
    > That's not a very big improvement in performance. :-)
    >>> AFAIR the TEE used to take about 5 hours but run on time in the
    >>> nineteen sixties.
AIUI the current Paris - Amsterdam Thalys 'schedule' is 4h 11m., and 4h 09m
coming back. (Downhill??)

Envo

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 17:21:46 GMT, "Envo"
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >>>> >> They still go faster than Thalys, since it spends half its life
    >>>> >> sitting
    >>>> >> in the middle of a field.
    >>>> >
    >>>> >That is what happened to me, but then we went in reverse for about 30
    >>>> >min... they said they will have their own tracks in 2008... we were
    >>>> >50min late on the Paris-> Amsterdam run.
    >>>> How long did it take?
    >>>4:55.
    >> That's not a very big improvement in performance. :-)
    >>>> AFAIR the TEE used to take about 5 hours but run on time in the
    >>>> nineteen sixties.
    >AIUI the current Paris - Amsterdam Thalys 'schedule' is 4h 11m., and 4h 09m
    >coming back. (Downhill??)

With a following wind?
--
Martin

Martin writes:

    > His opinions on global warming are strongly influenced by 24/24 all
    > year round central heating and his string underwear.

There is a considerable amount of evidence for global warming, and
warming in France in particular.

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

Martin writes:

    > and the occasional disastrous train crash as has been proved.

Most crashes are the result of human error, not a lack of maintenance
or other mechanical failure.

    > What about all the non-green energy used?

What about it? The energy can come from anywhere. And if it were not
used to power trains, a lot more would be required to power other
forms of transportation.

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

Martin writes:

    > Making steel isn't ecologically friendly.

Neither is burning fifteen tons of kerosene or more to move a hundred
people a few hundred miles.

    > We are discussing TGV type trains not any old train.

The TGV trains are especially aerodynamic.

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

I agree.

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

A single TGV Duplex unit carries about 550 passengers; running two
units raises capacity to 1100 passengers. TGVs pull about six
megawatts under maximum load, IIRC, which works out to 5500 watts per
passenger. An individual automobile will pull perhaps 150 kw at high
speed; with one person per car, that's 150,000 watts per person. With
four people per car, that's still 37,500 watts per person (7.5 times
more than a TGV). A bus with 40 passengers consuming about 400 kw is
still consuming 10,000 watts per passenger, twice that of a TGV.

    > Directly!!!

If they are powered by electricity produced by a non-polluting
generating plant, they produce no pollution at all.

    > Have you tried getting to Australia with the TGV.?

Have you tried getting from Paris to Nantes by air?

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

tile wrote:
    >A new train has best tested ont he Roma
    >Napoli truck built expecially for fast trains
    >the top speed was 348 kms hour.
    >that will reduce the time between the two
    >towns to about 30 minutes

Thanks for the info! I've done that route 4x and I'm looking forward to
taking this new train in '06.

But I think it will take longer than 30mins :).
I googled the rail distance and it was 203km on the older tracks.
So *theoretically* (leave and arrive at 348km/hr) on those tracks it
could do Rome-Naples in ~35min.

But practically, slow speed departures and arrivals at the station,
getting up to and slowing down from running speed and is it going to run
at it's 348km *top speed*?

Just guessing but in reality what are we looking at, an hour maybe?
That would still beat the Eurostar by 45min.
Regards, Walter



..And Paradise Was Lost...like teardrops in the rain...

"Martin" <[email protected]> skrev i meddelandet
news:[email protected]...
    > 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.
--------------
Complete wrong. Just count on a double TGV duplex each 5 minute each way
and compare with a motorway. And besides the LGV double track needs much
less the wide of a motorway.

"Martin" <[email protected]> skrev i meddelandet
news:[email protected]...
    > 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.
---------------------
Yes indeed it's very occasional. In Sweden we are counting 15 years
since the last disastrous train crash 1990. In the same time roadaccidents
have killed around 500-600 each year.

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 19:39:52 GMT, "Lennart Petersen"
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >"Martin" <[email protected]> skrev i meddelandet
    >news:[email protected].. .
    >> 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.
    >--------------
    >Complete wrong. Just count on a double TGV duplex each 5 minute each way
    >and compare with a motorway. And besides the LGV double track needs much
    >less the wide of a motorway.

There isn't a double duplex TGV each 5 minutes.
--
Martin

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 19:46:56 GMT, "Lennart Petersen"
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >"Martin" <[email protected]> skrev i meddelandet
    >news:[email protected].. .
    >> 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.
    >---------------------
    >Yes indeed it's very occasional. In Sweden we are counting 15 years
    >since the last disastrous train crash 1990.

Is Sweden not doing maintenance?


--
Martin

ALAN HARRISON <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Do you have a link for any details of the train? I'll just check out IRA.
    > (N.B. That's the Italian railfans site, not an organisation to which Mr
    > Gerard Adams may or may not belong.)

The Italian high speed lines will be used mainly by a new series of
bitension ETR 500 (while the main system in Italy is 3000 V DC, the high
speed lines will be under AC - so the train sets should be bitension in
order to run on all lines). Some ETR 500s (the most recent ones) were
already built for running under AC. The engines of the old series (3000
V DC) will be substituted by new ones and the old engines adapted to run
with IC trains.


--
Luca Logi - Firenze - Italy e-mail: [email protected]
Home page: http://www.angelfire.com/ar/archivarius
(musicologia pratica)

Robert J Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Does the track along side an Autostrada? I recall that a train from
    > Firenze to Rome ran beside one and the cars were going faster than the
    > train.

Usually it is the other way round.

--
Luca Logi - Firenze - Italy e-mail: [email protected]
Home page: http://www.angelfire.com/ar/archivarius
(musicologia pratica)