Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
America, as it turns out, was Made for HSR | 95 comments (95 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)
Also, there is a fellow saying that a 320kph ... (none / 0)
... system is unsuitable for the US because the rail slope is different, so equipment that runs on the specialized high speed corridor cannot run on the regular rail system.

He quotes 30% grinding on high speed TGV and 20% grinding on "regular rail around the world" (except for light rail, which is sometimes 0% slope).


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 01:01:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Also, there is a fellow saying that a 320kph . (none / 0)
Could you give a link for that comment? It appears that fella' is talking BS, but maybe some details got lost and I'm not familiar enough with North American rail terminology. But assuming it's not my failt, my reply would be:

It is true that US rail and wheel profile is different from the European one, but you solve that by changing both (after all, when the German ICE made a demonstration tour of the US 15 years ago, its wheels were replaced), and it is not a function of high-speed or conventional. (After all, as others said, many French TGVs continue their travel to destinations along conventional lines, say Paris-Bordeaux, which is high-speed less than half-way, only until Tours.)

The grinding rate I know about is a measure of maintenance needs: how much of a line has to be grinded a year to correct rail surface errors. As such it has nothing to do with compatibility with conventional lines. (And on some heavily-used TGV lines, the grinding rate can be not just 30% but up to 50%.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 04:15:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Also, there is a fellow saying that a 320kph . (none / 0)
I can't, its an internal discussion. But the assertion is that the track geometry for the the highest speed TGV's is 30% slope, the track geometry for "regular rail everywhere in the world" is 20% slope, therefore high-speed TGV's are restricted to TGV only track almost exclusively.

Is the distinction between the highest speed corridors and the lower speed corridors track geometry or the actual layout of the track ... curve radius, etc?

My belief is that he has received a garbled interpretation of a poorly understood fact from the middle of one of those pointless arguments between Express Rail and HSR.

However, I had only inferred the opposite from what I had gathered regarding TGV's, and did not know it directly.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 04:35:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Also, there is a fellow saying that a 320kph . (none / 0)
Is the distinction between the highest speed corridors and the lower speed corridors track geometry or the actual layout of the track ... curve radius, etc?

Basically the latter: key factors are minimum curve radius, distance of the two tracks and distance from buildings/walls, switches. But other requirements are: stronger and more tense catenary, special signalling and train control system, and a number of safety measures (like sensors for cars falling off bridges).

To bolster you even further, here is a picture of what someone referred to upthread, a TGV pulled by a diesel on the last leg of the Paris--Les-Sables-d'Olonne journey along a really really conventional track:



*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 05:23:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
A stronger catenary is not an issue in the US. (none / 1)
There very few places that have a catenary structure at all, so the HSR would be defining the strength and tension of the catenory for the bulk of the country.

;)


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 06:41:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Also, there is a fellow saying that a 320kph . (none / 0)
Thinking about it, one possibility for what he/you may have meant: rail inclination. That is really about slope, rails being tilted inward, and 1:20 is one of the typical values, and the one preferred for high-speed. However, it is not necessary -- for example German lines have 1:40, the other common value in Europe. But what you should tell your commenter is that international trains in Europe often traverse sections alternating between 1:20 and 1:40, in fact it can vary between these values on the same line (say there is fixed track in a tunnel) -- it is no compatibility problem, only the forces and wear are different.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 04:59:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Also, there is a fellow saying that a 320kph . (none / 0)
He's use 20% and 30% as values, so it can't be inclination, which in percentage slope terms are like 2.5% and 5%.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 05:03:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Also, there is a fellow saying that a 320kph . (4.00 / 2)
Re-reading (I often get confused what with being exposed to both technical and non-technical railroading language from three continents), that does appear to be it.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 05:07:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

America, as it turns out, was Made for HSR | 95 comments (95 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: