OFF TOPIC fancy new train 1945

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

New streamlined B&O train between Washington and Cincinnati

https://books.google.com/books?id=I19CAQAAIAAJ&dq=%22modern%20railroads%22%201947&pg=PA3#v=onepage&q&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=I19CAQAAIAAJ&dq=%22modern%20railroads%22%201947&pg=PA66#v=onepage&q&f=false

[J. Clarke]

Note that that's _steam_. 12 hours from Baltimore to Cincinnati.
Amtrak's "modern" diesels take 16.

[Quadibloc]

On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 11:20:50 AM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> New streamlined B&O train between Washington and Cincinnati

The Baltimore and Ohio railroad, of course, not Bang and Oluffsen, the designer
audio company.

John Savard

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

In article <3a00096f-fd6a-4472...@googlegroups.com>,

A few months ago, I was wondering why trains are not streamlined
anymore. I didn't find a definitive answer, but I think the gist
was while it looked nice, it added weight and cost and didn't really save
enough on air resistance to be worthwhile.
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

[Scott Lurndal]

Apples != Oranges. In "modern" times, one can fly in less than an hour.

[maus]

We need a new concept of distance. In a recent family emergency, people could
get to Ireland faster from Perth, Australia than from a remore Scottish island.


--
Ma...@ireland.xxx
Will rant for food.
You are taking the IPCC, right?

[Charlie Gibbs]

Still, could you imagine how pretty the trains would be?

--
/~\ cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ "Alexa, define 'bugging'."

[Charlie Gibbs]

Indeed. They say the world is getting smaller, but the way local traffic
is going, it's getting bigger again.

[Andreas Kohlbach]

On 8 Oct 2019 03:36:42 GMT, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>
> A few months ago, I was wondering why trains are not streamlined
> anymore. I didn't find a definitive answer, but I think the gist
> was while it looked nice, it added weight and cost and didn't really save
> enough on air resistance to be worthwhile.

They are, just not in the US or Canada where no high speed train networks
exist. Look at <TGV https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGV> in France, the
father of high speed trains staring in 1981. In 2007 it set a speed
record of 574.8 km/h (357 mp/h). I once used a TGV from Paris to
Lyon. Took a while to get out of the city. But once there the speedometer
clocked at 280 km/h if I recall correctly. Everything outside "flew" past
me so fast. According to Google it takes 2.5 hours for the almost 400
kilometer. Another web page says a flight takes 1 hour and 5 minutes. But
with check-in and -out you might be faster with the train. And it's
certainly cheaper.

Japan and South Korea have bullet bullet trains and pretty country in
Europe operates high speed lines.

You don't need streamlined trains for low speed.
--
Andreas

My random thoughts and comments
https://news-commentaries.blogspot.com/

[Scott Lurndal]

Charlie Gibbs <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
>On 2019-10-08, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 11:20:50 AM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>
>>> New streamlined B&O train between Washington and Cincinnati
>>
>> The Baltimore and Ohio railroad, of course, not Bang and Oluffsen,
>> the designer audio company.
>
>Still, could you imagine how pretty the trains would be?

The train in the article does actually have a bang&olufson
vibe an art deco kinda way.

[Scott Lurndal]

Andreas Kohlbach <a...@spamfence.net> writes:
>On 8 Oct 2019 03:36:42 GMT, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>>
>> A few months ago, I was wondering why trains are not streamlined
>> anymore. I didn't find a definitive answer, but I think the gist
>> was while it looked nice, it added weight and cost and didn't really save
>> enough on air resistance to be worthwhile.
>
>They are, just not in the US or Canada where no high speed train networks
>exist.

https://wtop.com/business-finance/2017/10/amtrak-unveils-new-acela-trains/

[snip]

> According to Google it takes 2.5 hours for the almost 400
>kilometer. Another web page says a flight takes 1 hour and 5 minutes. But
>with check-in and -out you might be faster with the train. And it's
>certainly cheaper.

That's also true from NYC Penn Station to Boston on Acela. Spacious, especially
in the relatively inexpensive first class cars; 110v outlets, tables,
nice views and arrival in backbay or downtown. Can take almost as long
to just get from Boston Logan to downtown. 140 to 160 MPH depending on
the consist once you get out of the NYC metro area.

[Peter Flass]

Plus two hours to and from each airport and needing to get there an hour
early to get through security.

--
Pete

[Andy Burns]

maus wrote:

> We need a new concept of distance. In a recent family emergency, people could
> get to Ireland faster from Perth, Australia than from a remore Scottish island.

TfL (even some estate agents) can draw isochrone maps which show where
you can live, if you want a commute less than 'x' minutes from a given
workplace.

[Andy Burns]

Andy Burns wrote:

> TfL (even some estate agents) can draw isochrone maps

<https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/urban-planning-and-construction/planning-with-webcat/webcat>

<https://www.zoopla.co.uk/travel-time>

[Andy Leighton]

On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 18:29:53 GMT, Scott Lurndal <sc...@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> Andreas Kohlbach <a...@spamfence.net> writes:
>>On 8 Oct 2019 03:36:42 GMT, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>>>
>>> A few months ago, I was wondering why trains are not streamlined
>>> anymore. I didn't find a definitive answer, but I think the gist
>>> was while it looked nice, it added weight and cost and didn't really save
>>> enough on air resistance to be worthwhile.
>>
>>They are, just not in the US or Canada where no high speed train networks
>>exist.
>
> https://wtop.com/business-finance/2017/10/amtrak-unveils-new-acela-trains/

Acela isn't really high speed. Yep the new Avelia Liberty trainset is capable
of a decent speed as the article said. But the problem isn't necessarily top
speed of the train. Look at the current Acelas - they average out at
around 70mph over the entire route (Boston - Washington). That is
pretty slow, it is slower than the East Coast Mainline in the UK
(which has fast but not high-speed trains).

The problem is infrastructure (including track) and congestion.

> [snip]
>> According to Google it takes 2.5 hours for the almost 400
>>kilometer. Another web page says a flight takes 1 hour and 5 minutes. But
>>with check-in and -out you might be faster with the train. And it's
>>certainly cheaper.
>
> That's also true from NYC Penn Station to Boston on Acela. Spacious, especially
> in the relatively inexpensive first class cars; 110v outlets, tables,
> nice views and arrival in backbay or downtown. Can take almost as long
> to just get from Boston Logan to downtown. 140 to 160 MPH depending on
> the consist once you get out of the NYC metro area.

Boston to NYC is currently 3.5 hours. So it is much closer to breakeven on
time. BTW the quickest Paris to Lyon journey is 1hr 56min and is a tad
longer in distance than Boston to NYC. Spain has their AVE which is
very fast too - Madrid to Barcelona (620km) in 2.5 hours non-stop.

--
Andy Leighton => an...@azaal.plus.com
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
- Douglas Adams

[Quadibloc]

On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 11:50:56 AM UTC-6, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On 8 Oct 2019 03:36:42 GMT, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:

> > A few months ago, I was wondering why trains are not streamlined
> > anymore. I didn't find a definitive answer, but I think the gist
> > was while it looked nice, it added weight and cost and didn't really save
> > enough on air resistance to be worthwhile.

> They are, just not in the US or Canada where no high speed train networks
> exist.

It's certainly true that trains for high-speed rail are streamlined still.

But as to his original question: it's quite true that while today's diesel-
electric trains are _not_ streamlined, there was a period when the later *steam-
engine* trains were streamlined.

That could well have been done just for looks. After all, it made sense that in,
say, 1930, a railway would have wanted to differentiate its trains from the
existing standard... which dated from 1890 or thereabouts.

This page has images of a few of the sort of trains I'm thinking of.

https://www.steamlocomotive.com/types/streamlined/

John Savard

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

Amtrak makes more stops and has to share the track with freights.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 4:36:28 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 11:50:56 AM UTC-6, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> > On 8 Oct 2019 03:36:42 GMT, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>
> > > A few months ago, I was wondering why trains are not streamlined
> > > anymore. I didn't find a definitive answer, but I think the gist
> > > was while it looked nice, it added weight and cost and didn't really save
> > > enough on air resistance to be worthwhile.
>
> > They are, just not in the US or Canada where no high speed train networks
> > exist.
>
> It's certainly true that trains for high-speed rail are streamlined still.
>
> But as to his original question: it's quite true that while today's diesel-
> electric trains are _not_ streamlined, there was a period when the later *steam-
> engine* trains were streamlined.
>
> That could well have been done just for looks. After all, it made sense that in,
> say, 1930, a railway would have wanted to differentiate its trains from the
> existing standard... which dated from 1890 or thereabouts.

Steam engines require a lot of maintenance and the streamlining
covers interfered with that. Many streamlined stream locomotives
had their covers removed when the train came in for maintenance.

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

In article <3308b84e-dcea-4dbc...@googlegroups.com>,

Interesting take from Chuck Jones:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa1bUH8nV64