Mutant validation
-
Worcester, Boston Drivers Worst In Nation, New Study Says
Worcester and Boston are ranked the most dangerous cities in the country to drive in, according to a new review.
-
I believe a relevant saying (though specific to the British Isles) goes, one difference between Americans and the English is that in England, 100 miles is a long way to travel, while in America, 100 years is a long time ago.
-
OTOH, we're talking about high-speed rail: unlike air travel, where weight is at a premium, there's no good reason why it couldn't carry automobiles. True, it would be damn expensive, and probably cheaper to rent a car at the other end for most people, but it would be a possibility.
There's no reason it should be more expensive. Hell, we've got a train line that runs in a dedicated tunnel under the sea, and it's cheap to take your car.While I'm at it, there's no particular reason you septics couldn't start making your cities more transport-agnostic, either. The american love for the automobile is about as healthy as the american love for the firearm.
-
I don't think you understand how spread out things are here.
I could take the train/bus to work in 2 hours, or my car in 25 minutes.
-
I understand exactly how spread out things are, thanks. I spent a considerable amount of time in Jesusland.
I could take the train/bus to work in 2 hours, or my car in 25 minutes.
So what? Working in London generally means at least an hour and a quarter commute, there isn't a car option (unless you're rich enough to pay someone to drive you), and even if there was a car option, it would take longer than the bus/train.the fact you can take your car doesn't mean you should.
-
SF and NYC are like London, the other 99.9999999% of the country isn't.
-
Pretty much, yes, though in southern California we found decent enough mix of English and Spanish going on.
-
The places here where zero English is spoken are the places that you want to avoid.
-
No me gusta?
-
I'll have a California burrito.
-
Seems like a lot of work, not to mention a relatively large amount of money for a day trip. And if you're going to be there longer, why not just drive?
You wouldn't drive down for a day trip either: it's 4-6 hours each way. It sucks to drive that long, so while a train is likely to be slower, it's a much more comfortable ride where you can stretch and pee and eat without being preoccupied. Renting a car on the other end seems no weirder than doing so for a plane ride to me, and renting a car for a weekend trip is reasonably priced.
-
All I can tell you is I've lived both places and I don't believe it.
-
the fact you can take your car doesn't mean you should.
The fact that you all crowd into one big city doesn't mean that you should, either.
-
Europeans love trains, don't they?
We still use 'em in the US, but not as much as them.
We just use 'em more efficiently, for moving stuff, not people.
-
The high speed train between San Fran and LA is doomed to failure. And that doesn't even leave a single State.
Europeans generally have no idea how spread-out the US is. Of course the US is nothing compared to Australia, but.
Even most American's don't comprehend the size of states in the west, especially California going North/South. Native East Costers simply cannot comprehend the Mojave, let alone the Rockies, Sierra Nevadas or the Cascades.
-
OTOH, we're talking about high-speed rail: unlike air travel, where weight is at a premium, there's no good reason why it couldn't carry automobiles.
This exists: http://www.amtrak.com/auto-train
But it's still something that almost no one finds reasonable.
-
People from Europe don't realize how dang big this country is until they do that.
Shit. People who live on the East Cost don't get it. But I repeat myself.
-
You wanna see bad drivers, spend time in southern Florida.
Sounds a lot like Athens, except there everyone also fancies themselves as racing drivers. (Also, the streets are narrower, but that hardly slows anyone down…)
-
And having said that, the idea of renting a car for the other end of an intrastate train ride? Seems like a lot of work, not to mention a relatively large amount of money for a day trip. And if you're going to be there longer, why not just drive?
It depends how far you're going and how many people are going with you.
For 40-100 miles (depending on traffic levels) cars aren't too bad. For longer distances, the amount of mental effort and time required to drive really takes its toll, and a high-speed train can make a lot of sense. (High-speed isn't necessarily in the european sense here; sustained speeds of 140mph can get you around quite nicely without requiring full HSR.) The longer the distance between stops, the better the train is because the faster it can go; the time cost of stopping somewhere is quite high. Somewhere between 500 and 1000 miles (10–20 hours driving1, 4–7 hours by train, or less if you can get the speeds up) it makes more sense to fly; air travel has a lot higher fixed time overheads than other modes of transport, especially if you have to change at a hub.
Anyone either driving or taking the train from NYC to LA isn't really doing it to get there in a hurry; scenic heritage routes are all very well, but not something that requires lots of worrying about. But Indianapolis–Milwaukee? Rail would do well at that (and there's only one truly mandatory rail stop between).
We just use 'em more efficiently, for moving stuff, not people.
You can't really use a line for both freight and HSR at the same time unless you've gone to the trouble of laying 4 parallel tracks (2 for freight, 2 for HSR). The difference in speeds and braking capacity just won't match up if you put everything on a single track in each direction (and if you're putting it all on a single track used bidirectionally, you really aren't thinking about even moderate speed operation…)
1That sounds like hell on earth to me…
-
I love hearing people say that. Boston drivers are mostly pretty rational; they're just not into cutting other drivers slack.
You wanna see bad drivers, spend time in southern Florida.
WTF are you whining about? Drive around in southern Europe (Spain, Italy, ... or Paris that one is screwed up too) and then come back to complain ...
-
(discounting the fact that so many Europeans speak English, of course...)
You obviously haven't really tried driving around in Europe. It really depends on the country,location in the country, age, culture, ... if you will or will not find anybody who speaks English or anything else. And if they are willing to put some effort in communicating with somebody who isn't using their language.
-
Is this an American thing? I've been hiring cars and vans since I was 21.Sure, under 25 you get a smaller choice of company or car and occasionally pay more, but it's possible.
It's very common in Australia too.
If you're under 25, you're either out of luck or charged exorbitant insurance, unless on a corporate rental.
-
Of course the US is nothing compared to Australia, but.
Sadly passenger rail is poorly developed in Australia, except intra-state (and that depends on the state).
We've got the epic journeys: the 4300km Indian Pacific (Perth<->Sydney) or the 3000km Ghan (Adelaide<->Darwin); and a smattering of state railways. Good if you want to go from major city to major city, but not if you want to go from one regional centre to another.
You can get the 13hr train Sydney<->Melbourne, but why would you when it's a 1.5 hour flight on the 5th busiest passenger air route in the world with 50+ flights a day.
There's even a single-issue political party campaigning for high-speed-rail up (part of) the east coast: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Train_for_Australia
-
When I lived in Fort Lauderdale, you would routinely see 5-10 cars run every single red light because they were afraid the person behind them would hit them due to not slowing down because they expected to run the red light themselves.
And I thought Detroit was bad. At least there they usually stop for red lights at the major intersections.
-
This exists: http://www.amtrak.com/auto-train
But it's still something that almost no one finds reasonable.
Having used this: http://www.eurotunnel.com/uk/home/ regularly, taking a car on a train under the sea seems perfectly normal
-
Having used this: http://www.eurotunnel.com/uk/home/ regularly, taking a car on a train under the sea seems perfectly normal
I guess it also seems normal because it is an alternative for putting your car on a boat. I don't see myself putting my car on a train to go to the south of spain for example.
-
Having used this: http://www.eurotunnel.com/uk/home/ regularly, taking a car on a train under the sea seems perfectly normal
The unreasonableness is a price thing.
-
(and if you're putting it all on a single track used bidirectionally, you really aren't thinking about even moderate speed operation…)
But we can "get by" with that, especially since you're proposing quintupling both capital and operational expenses in laying and maintaining a stretch of track. (The extra 1x comes from switching.)
-
But we can "get by" with that, especially since you're proposing quintupling both capital and operational expenses in laying and maintaining a stretch of track. (The extra 1x comes from switching.)
Yeah, but you've massively reduced the effective capacity, and you need a lot more sets of points to allow trains to pass each other. Upgrading to having a track in each direction more than doubles capacity, even for freight, while greatly simplifying most operations. But even then you're still not going to want to mix freight and HSR; they have different constraints.
HSR needs much more care on the curves because of the much higher speeds, whereas freight needs much more care on the inclines because of the much higher mass. HSR systems can typically both accelerate and brake much faster than freight systems, since you put both power and fancy brakes on each set of bogies rather than putting all that stuff on the engine; the increased contact from using all the wheels more than compensates for the reduction in mass applied to each power wheel.
In short, passenger rail can be both fast and profitable (much UK rail is outright profitable, to the great irritation of many passengers) but to be that it mustn't be run in the way that the vast majority of US rail systems are.
-
Yeah, but you've massively reduced the effective capacity, and you need a lot more sets of points to allow trains to pass each other. Upgrading to having a track in each direction more than doubles capacity, even for freight, while greatly simplifying most operations.
Except we don't need capacity. As it is, we don't even need additional points for trains in opposite directions passing, because we already have them at stations to allow mainline trains to pass stopped trains, which doesn't happen that often either.
since you put both power and fancy brakes on each set of bogies rather than putting all that stuff on the engine;
So, rather than having a locomotive being the single, central source of motive power, now each unit of stock needs that capability. Since it does not make fiscal sense to try to maintain third-rail (due to corrosion) or catenary (due to wind, oversize trains, and so on) systems throughout vast, sparsely-inhabited rural US, each car needs its own diesel engine, separately maintained and fueled, along with its own electrical subsystems (remember, even at 160MPH, most trips are still going to be several hours, so passengers will need "creature comforts" like wifi and a club car and stuff). I don't think that's gonna work out, really...
it mustn't be run in the way that the vast majority of US rail systems are.
Agreed. But the ones that are run that way in the US are done along heavy urban corridors (e.g. Amtrak Acela Express in the Boston-NY-DC corridor) where there's both heavy traffic justifying the added expense and heavy urbanization making the tracks a lot easier logistically to maintain. The ones run the more traditional, at-the-speed-of-freight way (like the Amtrak NE Regional once it leaves that corridor) don't have the ridership to make dedicated rails make fiscal sense (use <5% capacity?) and go through bumblefuck nowhere to get there (40 miles of nothingness between Manassas and Culpeper, 40 more miles of nothing between Culpeper and Charlottesville, 60 miles of lightly-mountainous nothing between Charlottesville and Lynchburg, and that's relatively urban compared to most cases!).
We can try to make rail more attractive by eliminating gov't subsidies to air carriers (who got them as part of the heavy regulation of the air industry half a century ago), but that still doesn't solve the problem of too few passengers wanting too diverse destinations in a very large, empty landmass.
-
Since it does not make fiscal sense to try to maintain third-rail (due to corrosion) or catenary (due to wind, oversize trains, and so on) systems throughout vast, sparsely-inhabited rural US, each car needs its own diesel engine, separately maintained and fueled, along with its own electrical subsystems
Diesel-electric is a thing. Diesel engine used to generate electrical power and electric engines actually driving the wheels.
I live in Queensland where there is a train that can travel over 200km/hr on narrow gauge tracks. We use narrow gauge because of some mountain ranges that needed to be crossed in the 1860s, which still does not have a passenger service despite demonstrated demand. I'm sitting on a train right now :) with traffic the train can be faster than driving. Not cheaper though if one already has a car and free/cheap parking.
-
Diesel-electric is a thing.
And yes, those exist and are used in Europe on some routes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICE_TD
-
Diesel-electric is a thing. Diesel engine used to generate electrical power and electric engines actually driving the wheels.
It's used in many places, even in the US. Electric transmission is much more efficient than mechanical; I don't think anyone really uses mechanical transmissions for new trains any more. That's independent of whether you send the power to all bogies or keep it within the engine car, but once you've got electric transmission, powering more wheels makes much more sense (and you can use the motors to help with some of the braking too, even regaining some of the energy if you've got a suitable storage system). I wouldn't be at all surprised if US locos weren't using a lot of these techniques.
The ones run the more traditional, at-the-speed-of-freight way don't have the ridership to make dedicated rails make fiscal sense
Technically, they won't get the ridership while everything creeps along at the pace of the slowest freight train in the area. Funny that.
@TwelveBaud said:and go through bumblefuck nowhere to get there
So the right of way is cheap to acquire? That's what a lot of European rail operations find hardest; the really massive costs are already dealt with by the time anyone starts actual construction…
-
Electric transmission is much more efficient than mechanical; I don't think anyone really uses mechanical transmissions for new trains any more.
Did anybody ever get an entirely mechanical powered bogey to work? I don't think I've ever seen one that wasn't a complete failure.
-
You obviously haven't really tried driving around in Europe.
You're right, and you're attitude is part of the reason I don't care to go there.
-
Is it any wonder with the obvious pedantry waiting to happen?
Filed under: Yes, I went there. Us Europeans aren't all bad. Just mostly.
-
Did anybody ever get an entirely mechanical powered bogey to work? I don't think I've ever seen one that wasn't a complete failure.
I don't know, unless you include ones where you put a diesel engine within the bogey assembly itself. Perhaps if we look back at what steam engines did we might find something, though the driving wheels there were (IIRC) usually not on bogeys.
-
If you're running a passenger train head on into a freight train, You're Doing It Wrong. The relatives of the passengers will agree with that. Consider going to more dual line operation, especially on routes carrying passengers, so that you don't need to have trains going in opposite directions on the same set of rails. (Bonus: you also get more efficient freight operations.) Also consider whether your signalling system is up to the job; the signalman should always know what blocks are occupied by trains and thus what blocks it is safe for a train to enter.
Agreed that running trains into each other is You're Doing It Wrong. However, the FRA crashworthiness specs for passenger rail gear say that it has to be able to survive the blow, regardless of however right or wrong it is.
Also, CTC xMT > DT ABS. (Try detouring wrong-rail around a stuck train in DT ABS/Current of Traffic territory.)
P.S. Ever heard of APB signaling?
-
Did anybody ever get an entirely mechanical powered bogey to work? I don't think I've ever seen one that wasn't a complete failure.
The early UK DMUs were diesel-mechanical. They've gone to diesel-electric for new designs, though.
-
I don't know, unless you include ones where you put a diesel engine within the bogey assembly itself. Perhaps if we look back at what steam engines did we might find something, though the driving wheels there were (IIRC) usually not on bogeys.
I'm 99% sure nobody ever managed a successful design using connecting rods, which is the easiest way to deliver power from a steam piston. I think this site has some geared locomotives that did ok, but not like "400 of them in service!" ok. More like, "we built 2 then gave up on the idea" ok.
The early UK DMUs were diesel-mechanical.
Right, but were the driving wheels on bogeys like a modern diesel-electric or un-bogeyed like a steam engine?
-
It depends how far you're going and how many people are going with you.
For 40-100 miles (depending on traffic levels) cars aren't too bad. For longer distances, the amount of mental effort and time required to drive really takes its toll, and a high-speed train can make a lot of sense. (High-speed isn't necessarily in the european sense here; sustained speeds of 140mph can get you around quite nicely without requiring full HSR.) The longer the distance between stops, the better the train is because the faster it can go; the time cost of stopping somewhere is quite high. Somewhere between 500 and 1000 miles (10–20 hours driving1, 4–7 hours by train, or less if you can get the speeds up) it makes more sense to fly; air travel has a lot higher fixed time overheads than other modes of transport, especially if you have to change at a hub.
Anyone either driving or taking the train from NYC to LA isn't really doing it to get there in a hurry; scenic heritage routes are all very well, but not something that requires lots of worrying about. But Indianapolis–Milwaukee? Rail would do well at that (and there's only one truly mandatory rail stop between).
Agreed that rail is most attractive for intermediate distances. The biggest issues with hitting the 140mph mark you talk about though seem to be linked to signaling (you have to have some sort of automatic protection/cab signaling system in place for speeds upwards of 79mph; we haven't seen new installs of coded cab signals or intermittent inductive train stop in ages, and PTC has yet to come of age) and grade crossings (FRA rules for >125mph operation require a completely grade-separated corridor), though.
You can't really use a line for both freight and HSR at the same time unless you've gone to the trouble of laying 4 parallel tracks (2 for freight, 2 for HSR). The difference in speeds and braking capacity just won't match up if you put everything on a single track in each direction (and if you're putting it all on a single track used bidirectionally, you really aren't thinking about even moderate speed operation…)
Once you get up into the 140-150mph range, yeah. It is possible to mix 90-110mph passenger operations with freight though, and you don't need 4 tracks for that either. (You'd be surprised at how many trains a 'track and a half' CTC handles, never mind full 2MT or 3MT CTC with passing tracks as well.)Except we don't need capacity. As it is, we don't even need additional points for trains in opposite directions passing, because we already have them at stations to allow mainline trains to pass stopped trains, which doesn't happen that often either.
Besides, most of the US rail bottlenecks aren't parked at sidings in the countryside. They're in the middle of big cities, where tangled webs of 100+ year old rail junctions struggle to keep up with the growth in rail traffic. Tower 55, anyone? (Or most of Chicagoland, for that matter.)
Yeah, but you've massively reduced the effective capacity, and you need a lot more sets of points to allow trains to pass each other. Upgrading to having a track in each direction more than doubles capacity, even for freight, while greatly simplifying most operations. But even then you're still not going to want to mix freight and HSR; they have different constraints.
HSR needs much more care on the curves because of the much higher speeds, whereas freight needs much more care on the inclines because of the much higher mass. HSR systems can typically both accelerate and brake much faster than freight systems, since you put both power and fancy brakes on each set of bogies rather than putting all that stuff on the engine; the increased contact from using all the wheels more than compensates for the reduction in mass applied to each power wheel.
Agreed that HSR vs freight is a curves vs grades thing (you can derail a freight train on a superelevated curve by going too slowly, and while pulling freight up a 6% grade is possible, it's generally not profitable due to the large amounts of fuel and motive power (you'll have DPUs cut in all over your train so that you don't bust a knuckle) needed to do so, whereas fast passenger trains need steeply superelevated curves but have no problem with 4%+ grades due to their higher HP/weight ratio).
However, double tracking is only worthwhile in this day and age if you're willing to abandon foolish notions of purely directional running, and go whole hog, with full bi-directional signaling on both lines along with powered crossovers and passing tracks.
@Zemm said:
Diesel-electric is a thing. Diesel engine used to generate electrical power and electric engines actually driving the wheels.
It's used in many places, even in the US. Electric transmission is much more efficient than mechanical; I don't think anyone really uses mechanical transmissions for new trains any more. That's independent of whether you send the power to all bogies or keep it within the engine car, but once you've got electric transmission, powering more wheels makes much more sense (and you can use the motors to help with some of the braking too, even regaining some of the energy if you've got a suitable storage system). I wouldn't be at all surprised if US locos weren't using a lot of these techniques.
US locos have been using dynamic braking since the days of the streamliners (E- and F- units, to be precise). Slugs (engineless loco chassis that take their power from another locomotive) are a thing, too, but you need the weight-on-wheels constantly, not just some of the time, or else you wind up with sharp variations in tractive effort, as that's governed by mass over drivers, not HP. (HP is about speed, mass over drivers governs pull up to the coupler limit, and you need distributed power to get past the coupler limit. For all the gory details, I invite you to read Al Krug's page on the topic.)Sidenote one: The UK has no idea how easy they get off when it comes to mountain grades. The Lickey is their toughest pull, and at a couple miles of 2.5%, it pales compared to the 6 mile 3% grade going eastbound over the Cajon Pass. Raton Pass on the old AT&SF main is worse, at 6 miles of 3.5% with a short stretch of 4%, and there are other comparable grades in other places on the US freight network. (Saluda Grade was >4%, but is no longer in use.)
Sidenote two: European couplers are terrible. Modern Janney couplers routinely carry loads that'd snap a Scharfenberg or instanter in half. (Just look at the tonnage ratings if you don't believe me.)
-
Right, but were the driving wheels on [s]bogeys[/s]bogies like a modern diesel-electric or un-bogeyed like a steam engine?
The old BR DMUs (class 1xx units all the way through the class 170s and even the 180s) did indeed use bogies with the engines and transmissions frame-mounted, with some shaft-coupler trickery (similar to CVs or U-joints in car driveshaft systems) to allow the bogies to do their job.
-
Well I was going to say "good point" and thank you for showing me something new, but then you became the human spell corrector (even though you obviously knew what word I meant) that now I hate you and are going to call you an idiot.
Idiot.
-
Well I was going to say "good point" and thank you for showing me something new, but then you became the human spell corrector (even though you obviously knew what word I meant) that now I hate you and are going to call you an idiot.
Idiot.
So close to blakeyment, you could taste it!
-
FRA rules for >125mph operation require a completely grade-separated corridor
That's actually sensible. Grade crossing are a really bad idea on a high speed route, especially for anything above a farm track.
@tarunik said:You'd be surprised at how many trains a 'track and a half' CTC handles, never mind full 2MT or 3MT CTC with passing tracks as well.
No, I wouldn't. That's describing the route I use to commute to work, and the main speed constraints are curves and the passing of local stopping passenger services. It isn't a primary freight route though; only one stretch really carries freight trains (bulk stone mostly and some bulk scrap metal) and they have several places where they can hold them for a gap in the passenger schedule. (They don't have enough places, but whatever.)
@tarunik said:tangled webs of 100+ year old rail junctions struggle to keep up with the growth in rail traffic
That's going to require spending to fix. Everyone keeps hoping otherwise, but knows it to be true. (It's true here too, except we've already fixed some of the worst.)
@tarunik said:The UK has no idea how easy they get off when it comes to mountain grades.
We don't really do mountains in the first place. And mostly don't mix them with trains.
-
@Tarunik said:
tangled webs of 100+ year old rail junctions struggle to keep up with the growth in rail traffic
That's going to require spending to fix. Everyone keeps hoping otherwise, but knows it to be true. (It's true here too, except we've already fixed some of the worst.)Yeah, those are being worked on over here, too. Thankfully, the US Class I's are doing well enough that capital spending is not an objection whatsoever.
-
>Zemm said:
Diesel-electric is a thing. Diesel engine used to generate electrical power and electric engines actually driving the wheels.It's used in many places, even in the US. Electric transmission is much more efficient than mechanical; I don't think anyone really uses mechanical transmissions for new trains any more.
For trains, pretty much diesel === diesel-electric. I'm pretty sure no US trains have used mechanical transmissions since the odd old bus was converted to run on rails in the 1930's or thereabouts.
you can use the motors to help with some of the braking too, even regaining some of the energy if you've got a suitable storage system
I'm not sure, but I think recovering the energy is mostly used in systems where the electricity is supplied externally (3rd rail or catenary). Diesel-electric locomotives, especially freight locomotives, do use the motors for braking, producing a lot of waste heat by dumping the current produced through big, honking resistors — saves a lot of wear and tear on brake pads on long downgrades in mountainous areas.
-
For trains, pretty much diesel === diesel-electric.
I suspect the 142s we have round here on some routes may be using mechanical transmission. (Heh; WP says they were, and were later converted to hydraulic.) But they're bogie-less.Before anyone asks, they're horrible in many ways. Can't wait for them to be scrapped (and a quick yay for legislation banning discrimination against people with disabilities; it's at least good for getting rid of the 142).
-
I'm not sure, but I think recovering the energy is mostly used in systems where the electricity is supplied externally (3rd rail or catenary). Diesel-electric locomotives, especially freight locomotives, do use the motors for braking, producing a lot of waste heat by dumping the current produced through big, honking resistors — saves a lot of wear and tear on brake pads on long downgrades in mountainous areas.
I suspect that the advances in energy storage in recent years may have some application here, but that's admittedly more likely with passenger transportation where the total energies are lower. (And a quick +1 for “big, honking resistors” :) )
-
I used to live in Greer; now I live in Simpsonville. (Relevance: both satellite cities of Greenville, SC, which is basically the waypoint between Charlotte, NC and Atlanta, GA. IE, the city whose business mostly comes from it being between two bigger, better places.) We have two Main Streets, one on either side of the railroad tracks that go right through the middle of downtown. Sometimes, when the train is unloading or loading or refueling or the driver's just clipping his toenails, they park so that the train blocks half of the intersections in town making it impossible to go anywhere without driving out of the city.
SC has some special, special city planners.
