250 km/h monorail TrensQuebec

[eph]

The site is exclusively in French
http://www.trensquebec.qc.ca/

Main features are:
- elevated
- suspended
- 60 to 75 passengers per vehicle (not a train)
- wheel hub motors
- Initiated and proposed routes in Quebec
- proposed as an alternative to HSR
- first appeared in ~2008


F.

[Eric Dunn]

With the discussion of the wheel motor (a technology that seems to have mythical status in Quebec) and the suspended nature of the proposed system I at first assumed that what is proposed is a SAFEGE style monorail.

But their description page (http://www.trensquebec.qc.ca/description-du-monorail) indicates 16 wheels per car operating in an I-beam.

The untested design, very high speed, and inclusion of 10-ton cargo capacity certainly make the proposition "ambitious".

And I'm not certain what their source for 250km/h monorail being built at $12million per km is. Is there any suspended monorail system that has ever been tested or run at those speeds?

Being able to take advantage of highway RoW could certainly be a HUGE advantage of any elevated highspeed solution. But the reality is that, just like power wires, the initial route might mimic highways in areas, but the interests of limiting track mileage (and maintaining speed), the guideway would want to be as straight as possible with much larger curvatures than highway below.

Sure wish what they propose was possible.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/transport-innovators/-/F2_DRwnAwnsJ.
To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.

[Eric Dunn]

Found a blog entry in English:
http://greentransportandenergy.blogspot.ca/2009/03/high-speed-suspended-monorails-instead.html

On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 2:44 PM, eph <rhaps...@yahoo.com> wrote:

--

[eph]

This page: http://www.trensquebec.qc.ca/cout-de-construction
linking to this PDF: http://www.trensquebec.qc.ca/images/doc_pdf/trensqubec_ireq.pdf

Gives a more detailed explanation of costs.  And some profit estimates.  Don't know if any of it makes sense.

$12 million per km may be guideway only?
They put $1,000,000 per vehicle (based on the cost of a bus), but similar LRV cost $5,000,000.


I agree, it's a neat idea and I think they're on the right track (no pun intended) with smaller guideway and vehicles, but they may need some better technical help.  Limiting it to 250 km/h (probably chosen because of top end automotive speeds) may make it less interesting, though power and alignments may make this all that is practical for the proposed corridors?

They plan on raising $10 million for a start-up from the public.


F.

[eph]

Oh, I had missed this point that Pierre Couture (who invented the/a wheel hub motor) proposed the idea.  That gives it more credibility if it isn't taken out of context.


F.

[Eric Dunn]

eph,

I had to laugh and hope you're not serious, but how is choosing 250 km/h LIMITING?

The highest speed regular service for steel wheels is approx. 300 km/h. 250 km/h for a rubber tire guided vehicle would be phenomenal.

The Chiba monorail reaches 65 km/h. And I think that the wheel motor might be a leap in technology for similar systems. But a four-fold increase in speed over currently deployed technology and just shy of current service speed records for contact wheel based transit is a very ambitious target.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/transport-innovators/-/eeNAI6sbSGoJ.

[eph]

I was serious.  Because distances between cities in North America tend to be larger and automobile travel faster than in Europe.  I originally thought a small Maglev type of vehicle (similar to TrensQuebec) made most sense.

The wheel-hub motor patent will expire in 3 years anyway.


F.

[Eric Johnson]

Kirston's system uses pneumatic tires with wheel motors and they are planning on 125 MPH/200 KPH speeds and they've validated those numbers based on what he has said. So, while this is a suspended system I see similar capabilities with it. Let's not forget a lot of folks in Europe drive the autobahns at 200+ KPH and their tires hold up well to the punishment. PS. It's fun going 200+ KPH too!  ;-0

 

A long distance line will have few stations, few connecting lines, fewer cars, and less storage of cars where it'll save substantial amounts in the 10% to 15% range. Add in their comments from the long second document and it looks like they've done some detailed cost estimations (rough interpretation based on english related wording). Remember, we have some folks who say bi-way PRT lines would cost around $15 Million per mile.

Eric

[Eric Johnson]

What I found interesting is his mention that HSR should cost 15 million euros per km while in the US it should cost $29 Million per mile back in 2009. Currently, the first part of CA HSR looks to be running $40 Million per mile in farm country assuming no cost over runs.

EricAZ

On Friday, January 18, 2013 1:19:53 PM UTC-7, Eric Dunn wrote:

Found a blog entry in English:
http://greentransportandenergy.blogspot.ca/2009/03/high-speed-suspended-monorails-instead.html

On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 2:44 PM, eph <rhaps...@yahoo.com> wrote:

The site is exclusively in French
http://www.trensquebec.qc.ca/

Main features are:
- elevated
- suspended
- 60 to 75 passengers per vehicle (not a train)
- wheel hub motors
- Initiated and proposed routes in Quebec
- proposed as an alternative to HSR
- first appeared in ~2008


F.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/transport-innovators/-/F2_DRwnAwnsJ.
To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[eph]

The more I read about this proposal, the more I see it's tied up in separatist political ideology.  Ironically, it's actually how they intend to raise the needed start-up capital.

Maybe a Canadian effort, using Maglev (or whatever the best technology may be) would make more sense and it would be limited to the Windsor to Quebec city corridor where major population centres exist and there are real freight possibilities.  Not to link up small, shrinking cities.

I think the cost estimate is do-able if done right.  I'm not sure why railway rights of way aren't considered instead of highways.  Alignments are probably smoother and better suited to high speeds.

I don't think you can validate with other unvalidated proposals.


F.

[Kirston Henderson]

   Our intercity MegaWay system will operate at 120-mph which is a speed well below the maximum sustained tire ratings for top quality automobile tires.

   You are correct in your statement that intercity lines will require few stations than any PRT.  With regard to that $15M per two-way PRT guideway, that number would likely not include any stations, switches, sidings, or vehicles.

Kirston Henderson
MegaRail® Transportation Systems
www.megarail.com

[Kirston Henderson]

   From what I have seen, that $40M per mile is probably an optimistic number being used by promoters.  I think that more careful estimates will be much greater.

Kirston Henderson
MegaRail® Transportation Systems
www.megarail.com
   

[Richard Gronning]

On 1/18/2013 3:47 PM, Eric Johnson wrote:
> Kirston's system uses pneumatic tires with wheel motors and they are
> planning on 125 MPH/200 KPH speeds and they've validated those numbers
> based on what he has said. So, while this is a suspended system

I believe that Megaway/Microway is/are supported systems. A supported
system has support from under. A suspended system is where the vehicles
hang, like Unimodal/Skytran.

[Bruff]

They're talking bus-sized (75 pax) vehicles and 10-ton containers. I'm wondering what their scenario would be if they scaled it down to PRT-size and weight. 

[Jack Slade]

I also think that 15 mil Euros per Km probably converts to $29 mil per mile,  using the currency values of 2009.  I remember other European costs,  for tunnels, etc,  that have been half of what it costs over here.  Don't ask me why:  could it be that ROW is a more realistic price over there.  Maybe not,  because there is no ROW costs for tunnelling.

 

Jack Slade

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.

To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.

[Eric Johnson]

Megaway is a supported system. 

I doubt if the tire load is very different between a supported vs suspended system assuming number of tires and everything else is the same. That's why I mentioned Kirston's system.

Eric

[Eric Johnson]

Considering CA HSRs track record of cost estimating, I'm expecting things to go through the roof! I'll be very surprised if they proceed and can finish without further money problems.
Eric

[Eric Johnson]

Jack,

I read a story recently about Spanish HSR and one thing that helped them was they broke up construction in 15 mile/20 km segments. This allowed for more companies to compete and it gave the HSR leadership a way to compare quality and timeliness between them in a shorter timeframe. They also mentioned where they had two tunnels to dig and they gave the contract to four companies with payment based on where they met in the middle vs their opposites! 

Whereas CA HSR only has 5 contractors making offers. Plus the CA HSR says they have to use mostly CA union workers. There is some clashing going on as some work is suppose to go to local businesses with non-union shops. It'll be interesting to see how it all pans out.

Eric

[eph]

This describes GTS, Podcars going very fast:
http://www.gtsfoundation.org/english/

I've also been looking at airplane fuselage since speeds would be high and they tend to be just big enough, no bigger.  Not sure what that translates to though.  For longer trips, restrooms become a factor and stations would spread apart further.


F.

[Eric Johnson]

Kirston has mentioned that Megaway has a 21 passenger version for long distance traveling and it includes a restroom. Place people in rows 3 across and add a short stubby nose and aerodynamic rear you are likely at 45 feet long, 8 foot wide, and 8 foot tall. Weight wise at 200 pounds per person that's 4200 pounds load and maybe 9000 pounds for empty vehicle.

So, if they had 30 second headways at 125 MPH you're looking at 2400 passengers per hour per direction. That's the same as HSR with 1200 pax capacity every 30 minutes. I think it's the better solution over HSR.

Eric

[Bruff]

Eric

On the subject of airplane fuselages, an interesting take is Ben Missler's SkyTram that would repurpose thousands of those of flown-out 737's and other aircraft now gracing bone yards.  http://skytraminternational.com/

[Kirston Henderson]

CORRECTION!

The long range, high-speed MegaWay passenger vehicle can carry a
maximum of 11 to 12 passengers, with one row of seats on each side of
a center aisle. Passenger capacity may be reduced to allow for more
luggage space. These vehicles include an airline type restroom in the
front.

Maximum gross weight is 8,000-lbs for cargo carriers or automobile
CarFerries™. The passenger only version would weigh significantly
less than 8,000-lbs.

Kirston Henderson

On Jan 18, 2013, at 7:32 PM, Eric Johnson wrote:

> Kirston has mentioned that Megaway has a 21 passenger version for
> long distance traveling and it includes a restroom. Place people in
> rows 3 across and add a short stubby nose and aerodynamic rear you
> are likely at 45 feet long, 8 foot wide, and 8 foot tall. Weight
> wise at 200 pounds per person that's 4200 pounds load and maybe 9000
> pounds for empty vehicle.
>
> So, if they had 30 second headways at 125 MPH you're looking at 2400
> passengers per hour per direction. That's the same as HSR with 1200
> pax capacity every 30 minutes. I think it's the better solution over
> HSR.

> Eric\

[Kirston Henderson]

That looks more like an artist's concept rather than anything close
to to a system design.

[Jack Slade]

Hell of a lot cheaper,  too......Jack S

From: Eric Johnson <itse...@gmail.com>
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/transport-innovators/-/-upJtxtmFFIJ.

[WALTER BREWER]

Brings up a question though.

 

Crossing relatively cheap undeveloped land with few crossins, is monorail an advantage over surface guidewy?

 

Walt Brewer

 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Kirston Henderson" <kirston....@megarail.com>

To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>

>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.

> To post to this group, send email to

transport-...@googlegroups.com.

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit this group at

http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.
>

[eph]

The arguments in favour of elevated guideway according to the report are the deep frost line which would require a lot of excavation for at grade tracks and winter/weather proofing.


F.

[eph]

Can the CarFerries™ run at 120 mph?


F.

[Eric Johnson]

I stand corrected.  ;-0

Eric

[Eric Johnson]

Bruff,

Sounds interesting and looks cool... But, why use such a huge body that wastes some 8 feet underneath and perhaps 20 feet with the nose sections & cockpits? They are a lot heavier than purpose built GRT or APMs and would require a lot of modifications to work.

Short version is it won't work economically. 
Eric

[Eric Johnson]

Lowering the height of anything elevated is going to reduce costs through use of less materials and easier installations whether monorail, DM, PRT supported or PRT suspended. 

The questions in this case are how much would frost upheaval affect a light weight supported system? How much dirt work would be needed to mitigate that movement? What kind of barriers would be needed to keep accidents off of it?

Suspended systems don't have to worry about that so they are cruising just above the grass. Oops! Grass? That means mowers to keep it cut. How do you coordinate mowers with traffic? Hmm, let's raise system by 8 feet to clear the mowers. What about truck accidents in median?

Don't forget you may have to go elevated to cross over a few overpasses. 

For a 100+ MPH system it seems like it could be cheaper and a lot simpler to just stay elevated. The side benefit is it could be advertised as a scenic ride!
Eric

[Jack Slade]

Yes.   Governments give free ROW to nobody except railroads,  snow has to be cleared,  bush has to be cut every 5 years,  every crossing is a potential disaster,  crossings will get more numerous with time,  and a thousand pound moose can do a lot of damage.  It is also much more expensive to clear full ROW through undeveloped land than it is to erect support pillars.

 

Jack Slade

[Kirston Henderson]

   Yes, but keep you windows closed.  As to noise, that is not be a problem with modern automobiles.  I had one of our earlier model Chryslers up to over 100-mph and the noise level inside was not significantly greater than at 80.  My current car is very quiet inside at 80-mph.

Kirston Henderson

[gerar...@gmail.com]

Discussion in french in an forum from Quebec
http://www.metrodemontreal.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11989

[Jerry Roane]

Walt

It depends.  Every system has to be evaluated and there are few generalizations that can be made generally speaking.  ;-)  Monorail can be significantly cheaper than surface roads or surface guideway.  Pick a route and number of expected customers and let the parties quote it.  With quotes in hand then you can see the relative costs.  Without ever asking for a comparative quote --- That's what we have today.   No agency has asked.  They are afraid of the answers they might get.  

When I try to propose unsolicited they throw up $50,000 barriers to run us off.  Beyond these "deposits" to pay them to do their public job, they tell me by phone that no matter what quotes I propose it will not be approved in one state in particular.  I was told this by a planner woman who had no clue what the hardware was.  With women like that in places of public authority no one will be allowed to find out what is the best value or give an answer to your very valid question.

Jerry Roane 

[WALTER BREWER]

Jerry,

 

Yeah, yeah, yeah!.

Regarding the first part, we all know about trade-off/cost-effectiveness analyses.

 

But this project despite cheap land, few crossings, etc etc chose elevated.

Was it just artist license, or factual analysis of the kind you describe?

 

It is poweful argument for PRT that elevated is cheaper if it can be proven. Must depend on land cost?

 

As for the decision makers, it goes way back to Marden's posting, and lack of top level analytical reasoning.

 

Walt brewer.

[Dennis Manning]

Walt:

 

Perhaps an obvious point but another important consideration besides besides land cost is cost of construction on the land. Even free land can have a huge range of cost to build on it.

 

Dennis

Jerry Roane

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to mailto:transport-innovators%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.

[Eric Dunn]

Bruff,
The idea of using aircraft manufacturers to create the bodies is a good one. But I'm not so sure about re purposing old bodies.

The skytram webpage is another example of how easy it is to dream something up and use a website to promote the idea. My big question to any proposal would be what are the development milestones that would be aimed for, how much funding required for each step, and at shat step is a commercial application possible.

Personally, starting from an ALWEG or SAFEGE monorail I'd ignore the Quebec wheel motor proposal and re-invent the drivetrain around a company that has real product to offer.

Perhaps scale down the size of the SFEGE bogie by basing the design on the 110 hp (peak) wheel motors from http://www.proteanelectric.com/

It would be wonderful to know the design criteria and tradeoffs that were made to come up with the SAFEGE design. Obviously lots is dependent on the size of motors available at the time and off-the-shelf Michelin and Renault transit parts.