NY Times: Tampa-Orlando Route Irrational
george conklin
Tampa and Orlando are only 84 miles apart, generally considered too close
for high-speed rail to make sense. The train trip, with many stops along the
way, would have shaved only around a half-hour off the drive. Since there
are no commercial flights between the two cities, the new line would not
have lured away fliers or freed up landing slots at the busy airports.
They went on to say a conventional train would be better or a monorail.
Stephen Sprunk
I agree--if this were to be an isolated line. The picture changes if it
were to connect with other lines, and I would assume that would be the
eventual plan.
> or a monorail.
Monorails are too slow to be useful for intercity travel.
If they really meant a maglev, IMHO we should focus on getting proven
technology working, which is also useful for freight, before we even
think about expensive, unproven technologies.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
Valentin Brückel
wrote:
> If they really meant a maglev, IMHO we should focus on getting proven
> technology working, which is also useful for freight,
A maglev which is useful for freight? I'll believe it when I see it.
> before we even think about expensive, unproven technologies.
We'll gladly sell you expensive, proven technology:
http://www.transrapid.de/
;-)
Val
Stephen Sprunk
> On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 20:42:29 +0100, Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org>
> wrote:
>> If they really meant a maglev, IMHO we should focus on getting proven
>> technology working, which is also useful for freight,
>
> A maglev which is useful for freight? I'll believe it when I see it.
Proven technology meaning steel wheels on steel rail.
>> before we even think about expensive, unproven technologies.
>
> We'll gladly sell you expensive, proven technology:
> http://www.transrapid.de/
They have, what, one or two operational lines? And it's slow, meaning
it isn't applicable for intercity service.
I was thinking of the Japanese maglev system, which might actually be a
viable option one day.
Nick Fotis
> On 12 Mar 11 13:49, Valentin Brückel wrote:
>> We'll gladly sell you expensive, proven technology:
>> http://www.transrapid.de/
>
> They have, what, one or two operational lines? And it's slow, meaning
> it isn't applicable for intercity service.
Why, 430 km/h regular speed on a 30.5 km route isn't fast enough for you?
(tests reached 501 km/h on this route)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Maglev_Train for more details
N.F.
Stephen Sprunk
Still, despite the impressive top speed, its average speed is only
224-251km/h (139-156mph), which barely puts it on par with HSR--but with
all the disadvantages of an incompatible system.
However, thanks for the pointer; I was only aware of the (much slower)
Transrapid systems in Europe.
Adam H. Kerman
>Though in comparison to conventional HSR under FRA regulation, I'm not sure
>that the Transrapid is more expensive.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha
Oh, wait, it's not a joke.
rsh...@gmail.com
George is in his usual lying mode.
Only the liars that wanted hsr to fail, and were determined that would
be what happened on their watch
I lived down there and drove I-4 plenty. Congestion is endemic and
not getting any better
where did multiple stops eminate from????
no one with any rail experience
three stops, Orlando Airport, Disney World, maybe one other at a
Disney site, and Tampa Airport
that is it, and it would have worked, reaching 200 mph easily on its
own row
believe me people like George are scared to death, absolutely without
a doubt
Nick Fotis
> Still, despite the impressive top speed, its average speed is only
> 224-251km/h (139-156mph), which barely puts it on par with HSR--but with
> all the disadvantages of an incompatible system.
When you have stations spaced 30.5 km apart, this average speed is very
good (the Maglev has better acceleration, as far as I know).
If you can raise the distances between stations to, say, 200 km average,
the average running speed rises sharply and adds to the Maglev advantage.
Of course, a distributed power HSR trainset can have metro-like
acceleration, reducing the advantage of the Maglev, while retaining the
capacity of reaching cities using conventional electrified tracks.
N.F.
Stephen Sprunk
> On 13/03/2011 04:52, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> Still, despite the impressive top speed, its average speed is only
>> 224-251km/h (139-156mph), which barely puts it on par with HSR--but with
>> all the disadvantages of an incompatible system.
>
> When you have stations spaced 30.5 km apart, this average speed is very
> good (the Maglev has better acceleration, as far as I know).
> If you can raise the distances between stations to, say, 200 km average,
> the average running speed rises sharply and adds to the Maglev advantage.
How long does it take to get to top speed? Obviously, it takes time to
get there, but it seems like 30km would be far enough that it'd be at
that speed for a significant fraction of the time.
> Of course, a distributed power HSR trainset can have metro-like
> acceleration, reducing the advantage of the Maglev, while retaining the
> capacity of reaching cities using conventional electrified tracks.
Right, and that benefit cannot be overstated.
For example, being able to upgrade (or bypass) conventional lines
gradually means a faster return on investment and therefore greater
public acceptance (and political feasibility) of the expenditure.
That's not so important a factor in mainland China, whose government has
a policy of imprisoning or killing anyone who publicly disagrees with
its decisions and therefore doesn't incur many of the political costs of
dissent (such as spending more repeatedly studying ideas, for no
economic benefit, than it would cost to implement them immediately), but
it is elsewhere.
Nick Fotis
> On 13 Mar 11 07:30, Nick Fotis wrote:
> How long does it take to get to top speed? Obviously, it takes time to
> get there, but it seems like 30km would be far enough that it'd be at
> that speed for a significant fraction of the time.
You can check for yourself in a video posted by HaJo:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMyffFFedrM
>> Of course, a distributed power HSR trainset can have metro-like
>> acceleration, reducing the advantage of the Maglev, while retaining the
>> capacity of reaching cities using conventional electrified tracks.
>
> Right, and that benefit cannot be overstated.
> For example, being able to upgrade (or bypass) conventional lines
> gradually means a faster return on investment and therefore greater
> public acceptance (and political feasibility) of the expenditure.
If you want to keep the existing city approach, that is.
If the city approach is a slow maze of crossovers etc., then it would be
preferable to make a run on a dedicated right of way or a tunnel, else,
your average speed will drop dramatically.
N.F.
Adam H. Kerman
>On 13/03/2011 04:52, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>Still, despite the impressive top speed, its average speed is only
>>224-251km/h (139-156mph), which barely puts it on par with HSR--but with
>>all the disadvantages of an incompatible system.
>When you have stations spaced 30.5 km apart, this average speed is very
>good (the Maglev has better acceleration, as far as I know).
>If you can raise the distances between stations to, say, 200 km average,
>the average running speed rises sharply and adds to the Maglev advantage.
If Maglev is useless for running locals, then you continue to need the
conventional railroad in the same corridor for local passenger and freight
services, not to mention long-distance freight services.
That's an economic disadvantage considering passenger services themselves,
unless it's acceptable to provide no local intercity rail service and that
everybody should drive on these trips.
>Of course, a distributed power HSR trainset can have metro-like
>acceleration, reducing the advantage of the Maglev, while retaining the
>capacity of reaching cities using conventional electrified tracks.
. . . if such trainsets weren't illegal to deploy on railroads in
this country, sigh.
Jishnu Mukerji
> Nick Fotis <nick....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Of course, a distributed power HSR trainset can have metro-like
>> acceleration, reducing the advantage of the Maglev, while retaining the
>> capacity of reaching cities using conventional electrified tracks.
>
> . . . if such trainsets weren't illegal to deploy on railroads in
> this country, sigh.
Distributed power isn't illegal in the US. But the weight that is is
required to fulfilled legislated buff strength requirements to give the
trains tank-like characteristics is what makes all the distributed power
useless for getting the sort of accelaration that is possible in systems
that operate under saner regulatory regime.
/J
Adam H. Kerman
Yes, that's what I was referring to.
Stephen Sprunk
The city approach is usually the most expensive example of the point I
was making.
If you have a completely conventional line between two cities, you can
gradually improve it section-by-section (whether by adding tracks,
easing curves or bypassing part of it entirely) and see immediate
payback in improved average speeds end-to-end, which translates to
higher fares and better equipment utilization that can pay for further
improvements.
I would expect that the city approaches would be the _last_ part of a
line you'd want to upgrade due to land and construction costs. OTOH,
unrelated commuter rail projects might pay part or all of that cost for you.
Stephen Sprunk
>> acceleration, reducing the advantage of the Maglev, while retaining
>> the capacity of reaching cities using conventional electrified
>> tracks.
>
> . . . if such trainsets weren't illegal to deploy on railroads in
> this country, sigh.
AFAIK, distributed power isn't against FRA regulations; it's just more
expensive since every coach becomes an EMU and therefore subject to
"locomotive" inspection and maintenance requirements.
JG
As a rule of thumb, 2 HSR city pairs should be big enuff of Major
League Baseball teams. Orlando is minor league at best.
JG
Yup, let them ride the 'Hound. The current FL governor wasn't willing
to risk the need for operating subsidies for this line. But thats $2.4
B more for IL and CA.
Adam H. Kerman
>On 13 Mar 11 12:47, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>Nick Fotis <nick....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>Of course, a distributed power HSR trainset can have metro-like
>>>acceleration, reducing the advantage of the Maglev, while retaining
>>>the capacity of reaching cities using conventional electrified
>>>tracks.
>>. . . if such trainsets weren't illegal to deploy on railroads in
>>this country, sigh.
>AFAIK, distributed power isn't against FRA regulations; it's just more
>expensive since every coach becomes an EMU and therefore subject to
>"locomotive" inspection and maintenance requirements.
I note you don't comment on the legality of trainsets Nick made a comment
on, just chose to read my follow with prejudice. MUs, somewhat common
in commuter rail and especially rapid transit, aren't capable of high
speeds, and it's ridiculous to assert that I meant that MUs, in and of
themselves, would be illegal at high speeds.
Philip Nasadowski
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> MUs, somewhat common
> in commuter rail and especially rapid transit, aren't capable of high
> speeds,
Most newer HSTs are MU, and all the Shinkansens are.
Stephen Sprunk
> Stephen Sprunk schrieb:
>> For example, being able to upgrade (or bypass) conventional lines
>> gradually means a faster return on investment and therefore greater
>> public acceptance (and political feasibility) of the expenditure.
>> That's not so important a factor in mainland China,
>
> another video already linked to).
China is busy building entirely new HSLs; they are not doing piecemeal
upgrades to conventional lines.
Nick Fotis
> If you have a completely conventional line between two cities, you can
> gradually improve it section-by-section (whether by adding tracks,
> easing curves or bypassing part of it entirely) and see immediate
> payback in improved average speeds end-to-end, which translates to
> higher fares and better equipment utilization that can pay for further
> improvements.
This approach was tried on the upgrades of the British WCML (West Coast
Main Line) and on the Athens-Thessaloniki mainline.
The first was an upgrade from 160km/h to 200km/h, the second was
double-tracking and raise speeds to 160-200km/h.
Both upgrades ended up as very costly projects (and in the case of the
Athens-Thessaloniki mainline, it's still a work in progress, after
billions of Euros were already sunk)
The passengers never felt the upgrades, because these were too gradual.
If a real HSR route was built from scratch instead, the costs would
probably be similar, while the impact from reduced timings and a more
smooth operation would be enormous.
> I would expect that the city approaches would be the _last_ part of a
> line you'd want to upgrade due to land and construction costs. OTOH,
> unrelated commuter rail projects might pay part or all of that cost for you.
Like these? *grin*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1ZFuNxCCSs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOA98Fyo_e0
(shot from the cab of a TGV-type trainset in Korea at the Seoul city
approach)
N.F.
Adam H. Kerman
>>MUs, somewhat common in commuter rail and especially rapid transit,
>>aren't capable of high speeds,
>Most newer HSTs are MU, and all the Shinkansens are.
Really? They have the same characteristics as MUs in commuter rail and
rapid transit service in North America? We could just relocate IC
Highliners, a few years newer than the older Shinkansen consists, to
JNR to run on a Shinkansen timetable?
Et tu, Philip?
Is there any possibility that there's more to higher speeds than just
MU capabilities?
Jishnu Mukerji
You don't have to have MU capabilities, nor do you have to have
distributed power to be high speed. Some HSTs are indeed distributed
power units, while others are not. Most can operate as MU, but this is
not a pre-requisite to be high speed capable. OTOH, just having
distributed power or MU capability does not make something inherently
able to be high speed. So I don;t quite know what we ar arguing about here.
/J
Stephen Sprunk
> Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>> On 13 Mar 11 12:47, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> Nick Fotis <nick....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Of course, a distributed power HSR trainset can have metro-like
>>>> acceleration, reducing the advantage of the Maglev, while retaining
>>>> the capacity of reaching cities using conventional electrified
>>>> tracks.
>>>
>>> . . . if such trainsets weren't illegal to deploy on railroads in
>>> this country, sigh.
>>
>> AFAIK, distributed power isn't against FRA regulations; it's just more
>> expensive since every coach becomes an EMU and therefore subject to
>> "locomotive" inspection and maintenance requirements.
>
> I note you don't comment on the legality of trainsets Nick made a
> comment on,
Since he did not cite a specific trainset, I must have been responding
to the general idea of what he was talking about.
> just chose to read my follow with prejudice.
Pot, meet Kettle.
> MUs, somewhat common in commuter rail and especially rapid transit,
> aren't capable of high speeds,
Siemens et al would be very surprised to hear that, since they've made
hundreds of high-speed trainsets with distributed power....
However, the FRA would probably classify each car in those trains as an
EMU and therefore a "locomotive". At best, they'd classify each entire
trainset as a single "locomotive" if the cars were permanently coupled,
which is not much better.
> and it's ridiculous to assert that I meant that MUs, in and of
> themselves, would be illegal at high speeds.
I suppose, then, it's a good thing I didn't assert that. If you think I
did, that says more about you (in particular your reading skills and/or
personal bias against me) than it does me.
Stephen Sprunk
> Philip Nasadowski <nasa...@usermale.com> wrote:
>> "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>> MUs, somewhat common in commuter rail and especially rapid transit,
>>> aren't capable of high speeds,
>>
>> Most newer HSTs are MU, and all the Shinkansens are.
>
> Really?
Yes. The major exception is the TGV, and even Alstom has realized they
need to go MU for their next generation to remain competitive.
> They have the same characteristics as MUs in commuter rail and
> rapid transit service in North America? We could just relocate IC
> Highliners, a few years newer than the older Shinkansen consists, to
> JNR to run on a Shinkansen timetable?
Of course not. IC Highliners are too heavy, are geared wrong, don't
have the aerodynamics or suspension for it and various other factors.
You seem to have a faulty understanding of what "MU" means.
Jishnu Mukerji
> Yes. The major exception is the TGV, and even Alstom has realized they
> need to go MU for their next generation to remain competitive.
Stephen, when you say MU are you sure you mean to say MU or are you
using that term to mean distributed power? The TGVs are already MU
capable and often operate in double units. Alstom is going from power
heads to distributed power in its AGV. Both TGV and AGV are capable of
running in MU formations.
/J
Adam H. Kerman
Please tell us the distinction you are making:
If the car is a motorized trailer, is that MU or distributed power
in a consist?
Or are you speaking of a section of an articulated car with traction motors
in that particular section as distributed power?
I assume any cab-control motorized trailers in a consist would be
thought of as MU'd.
Adam H. Kerman
>On 13 Mar 11 17:07, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>>On 13 Mar 11 12:47, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>Nick Fotis <nick....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>Of course, a distributed power HSR trainset can have metro-like
>>>>>acceleration, reducing the advantage of the Maglev, while retaining
>>>>>the capacity of reaching cities using conventional electrified
>>>>>tracks.
>>>>. . . if such trainsets weren't illegal to deploy on railroads in
>>>>this country, sigh.
>>>AFAIK, distributed power isn't against FRA regulations; it's just more
>>>expensive since every coach becomes an EMU and therefore subject to
>>>"locomotive" inspection and maintenance requirements.
>>I note you don't comment on the legality of trainsets Nick made a
>> comment on,
>Since he did not cite a specific trainset, I must have been responding
>to the general idea of what he was talking about.
You must have been, even though your followup was to my article?
>>just chose to read my follow with prejudice.
>Pot, meet Kettle.
I didn't misinterpret your intent, Stephen.
>>aren't capable of high speeds,
>Siemens et al would be very surprised to hear that, since they've made
>hundreds of high-speed trainsets with distributed power....
Which ones are in the country, Stephen, running at high speeds? And why are
you suddenly attempting to change the discussion from MU to distributed
power and to consists not running in the US to distract from the crap
you added to it?
>However, the FRA would probably classify each car in those trains as an
>EMU and therefore a "locomotive". At best, they'd classify each entire
>trainset as a single "locomotive" if the cars were permanently coupled,
>which is not much better.
What do you mean, probably? How can they not be locomotives if they have
cabs and traction motors?
>>and it's ridiculous to assert that I meant that MUs, in and of
>>themselves, would be illegal at high speeds.
>I suppose, then, it's a good thing I didn't assert that. If you think I
>did, that says more about you (in particular your reading skills and/or
>personal bias against me) than it does me.
You can deny what you wrote, but it's all quoted there.
Stephen Sprunk
Sorry, I meant distributed power above.
Yes, TGVs can be MU'd together today. However, only the power cars are
considered "locomotives", whereas every car in an ICE or AGV would be a
"locomotive" due to their distributed power.
Jishnu Mukerji
> On 14 Mar 11 14:27, Jishnu Mukerji wrote:
>> On 3/14/2011 3:09 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>
>>> Yes. The major exception is the TGV, and even Alstom has realized they
>>> need to go MU for their next generation to remain competitive.
>>
>> Stephen, when you say MU are you sure you mean to say MU or are you
>> using that term to mean distributed power? The TGVs are already MU
>> capable and often operate in double units. Alstom is going from power
>> heads to distributed power in its AGV. Both TGV and AGV are capable of
>> running in MU formations.
>
> Sorry, I meant distributed power above.
>
> Yes, TGVs can be MU'd together today. However, only the power cars are
> considered "locomotives", whereas every car in an ICE or AGV would be a
> "locomotive" due to their distributed power.
Thanks. That is how I interpreted in my mind what you were trying to
say. But just wanted to make sure.
/J
Adam H. Kerman
>On 14 Mar 11 14:27, Jishnu Mukerji wrote:
>>On 3/14/2011 3:09 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>>Yes. The major exception is the TGV, and even Alstom has realized they
>>>need to go MU for their next generation to remain competitive.
>>Stephen, when you say MU are you sure you mean to say MU or are you
>>using that term to mean distributed power? The TGVs are already MU
>>capable and often operate in double units. Alstom is going from power
>>heads to distributed power in its AGV. Both TGV and AGV are capable of
>>running in MU formations.
>Sorry, I meant distributed power above.
>Yes, TGVs can be MU'd together today. However, only the power cars are
>considered "locomotives", whereas every car in an ICE or AGV would be a
>"locomotive" due to their distributed power.
For crash test purposes, or for inspection when coupling the consist
together and preparing for departure from the terminal? As far as I
know, crashworthiness applies to bumping posts in the cabs and wouldn't
affect other cars.
Glen Labah
Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
> On 14 Mar 11 12:30, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> > Philip Nasadowski <nasa...@usermale.com> wrote:
> >> "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> >>> MUs, somewhat common in commuter rail and especially rapid transit,
> >>> aren't capable of high speeds,
> >>
> >> Most newer HSTs are MU, and all the Shinkansens are.
> >
> > Really?
>
> Yes. The major exception is the TGV, and even Alstom has realized they
> need to go MU for their next generation to remain competitive.
150 mph isn't high speed any more, but I think the only other exception
out there is Talgo. They've done some work with converting their
highest speed train sets that direction, but aren't quite there yet for
everything I don't think. Quite honestly, the things are so low to the
ground I'm not sure where you would put any more equipment required for
EMU or DMU type distributed power.
Then again, I'm not sure they need to for most of their trains. The
statistics I remember show an entire Talgo locomotive + train as having
a better power to weight ratio than a single F59 without a train.
--
Please note this e-mail address is a pit of spam due to e-mail address
harvesters on Usenet. Response time to e-mail sent here is slow.
Stephen Sprunk
>> considered "locomotives", whereas every car in an ICE or AGV would be a
>> "locomotive" due to their distributed power.
>
> For crash test purposes, or for inspection when coupling the consist
> together and preparing for departure from the terminal? As far as I
> know, crashworthiness applies to bumping posts in the cabs and wouldn't
> affect other cars.
For all purposes. If it has one or more powered axles, it's a
locomotive as far as the FRA is concerned. If it doesn't have a cab,
then cab requirements don't apply, but many others still do.
NJT and CMTA needed dozens of waivers for the GTW since Stadler uses a
rather different design than US locomotive manufacturers (for obvious
reasons), so many of the FRA's usual locomotive equipment and inspection
requirements didn't make sense. Getting a buff strength waiver based on
temporal separation didn't exempt them from any other regulations; they
had to be knocked down one-by-one.
Stephen Sprunk
> Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>> On 13 Mar 11 17:07, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>>> On 13 Mar 11 12:47, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>> Nick Fotis <nick....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Of course, a distributed power HSR trainset can have metro-like
>>>>>> acceleration, reducing the advantage of the Maglev, while retaining
>>>>>> the capacity of reaching cities using conventional electrified
>>>>>> tracks.
>>>>>
>>>>> . . . if such trainsets weren't illegal to deploy on railroads in
>>>>> this country, sigh.
>>>>
>>>> AFAIK, distributed power isn't against FRA regulations; it's just more
>>>> expensive since every coach becomes an EMU and therefore subject to
>>>> "locomotive" inspection and maintenance requirements.
>>>
>>> I note you don't comment on the legality of trainsets Nick made a
>>> comment on,
>>
>> Since he did not cite a specific trainset, I must have been responding
>> to the general idea of what he was talking about.
>
> You must have been, even though your followup was to my article?
All you said was "such trainsets", thus copying his ambiguity. To
resolve yours properly, I had to resolve his first.
>>> just chose to read my follow with prejudice.
>
>> Pot, meet Kettle.
>
> I didn't misinterpret your intent, Stephen.
How convenient for you that you can read minds and be absolutely sure of
my intent--more sure, in fact, than _I_ am.
>>> aren't capable of high speeds,
>>
>> Siemens et al would be very surprised to hear that, since they've made
>> hundreds of high-speed trainsets with distributed power....
>
> Which ones are in the country, Stephen, running at high speeds?
I never said any of them were.
> And why are you suddenly attempting to change the discussion from MU
> to distributed power
The discussion above was about distributed power.
> and to consists not running in the US to distract from the crap you
> added to it?
Since there are no HSTs with distributed power in the US, how could
talking about the _only_ examples of such trainsets be a "distraction"?
>> However, the FRA would probably classify each car in those trains as an
>> EMU and therefore a "locomotive". At best, they'd classify each entire
>> trainset as a single "locomotive" if the cars were permanently coupled,
>> which is not much better.
>
> What do you mean, probably? How can they not be locomotives if they have
> cabs and traction motors?
Individual powered cars may or may not have cabs. Also, they may or may
not be capable of moving without being attached to other cars, e.g. one
with a cab. I'm not sure whether the FRA would consider each car a
locomotive in that case, since there are no examples to follow.
>>> and it's ridiculous to assert that I meant that MUs, in and of
>>> themselves, would be illegal at high speeds.
>>
>> I suppose, then, it's a good thing I didn't assert that. If you think I
>> did, that says more about you (in particular your reading skills and/or
>> personal bias against me) than it does me.
>
> You can deny what you wrote, but it's all quoted there.
I say a lot of things, so you'll have to be more specific, especially
since none of them resemble what you are asserting I said.
Bernhard Agthe
On 03/13/2011 05:23 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> How long does it take to get to top speed? Obviously, it takes time to
> get there, but it seems like 30km would be far enough that it'd be at
> that speed for a significant fraction of the time.
Wait a second... The transrapid can (theoretically) accellerate to
500km/h in a kilometer or two, but then you'd find the passengers being
scrambled through the air-condition slots.
The thing is, with rail vehicles, especially underground systems, you
have to limit accelleration and decelleration to prevent passengers
breaking their necks. The proven value for maximum decelleration is
about 1.2g IIRC. If you break any sharper, you have lots of passengers
in hospital.
Apply similar numbers to Transrapid, and do the calculation. It simply
takes (whatever) 10 kilometer to reach 400km/h (or so). Also keep in
mind that the Transrapid needs to slow down if the track is not
completely straight.
Hope that clarifies it a bit?
Ciao...