Subject:
|
Re: what is the use of a caboose?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Tue, 31 Jul 2001 15:32:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1000 times
|
| |
|
|
Now this is long and maybe too off-topic but I thought you trainheads might
be interested in transport issues, let me know if I shouldn't post this sort
of thing:
I wrote:
> > I may have good news for you Lawrence. My colleagues at work are now
> > consulting over new 'Intermediate Modes' schemes for London (due to the huge
> > success of Croydon Tramlink) and the result may be trolleybuses in
> > Greenwich, Uxbridge Road or Barking within a decade.
Lawrence wrote:
>
> Interesting.
>
> I guess that in some respects the infrastructure cost is not necessarily any different to other forms of mass transit.
> If you ignore regular buses, which dont need new roads, then I guess laying the electricity cables along existing roads
> is cheaper than digging up the road for tram tracks, or finding new routes for the trains.
> Why wouldn't you just go for battery powered buses though?
> Battery power has come on a great deal since the trolley bus era, yet offers the same benefit.
The life of a battery used in a bus application, which is constantly going
through charge / discharge cycles and not being discharged totally and then
re charged (this is necessary because only with regenerative braking can you
get the electricity consumption down enough) is only 3 or 4 years.
Batteries to run a bus for four or five hours are around 2-3 tons (still!)
and the disposal is an environmental nightmare as the chemicals used are
highly toxic. Basically the costs are extremely high and the efficiency
much less than a vehicle that draws power from an external source. Also the
batteries take up space which could be used to improve the capacity and
internal configuration of the vehicle.
>
> While we are discussing mass transits, ask your colleagues why they dont build some monorails :-)
> When I was young, they were also portrayed as the mass transit of the future.
> Isnt there a new one in Japan, or is it Germany. Using Magnetic levitation type stuff?
We get letters suggesting we build monorails almost weekly. We have to
politely explain the following:
All decisions on which mode to use to serve a need come down to cost versus
benefits. There are a large number of reasons why monorails are a high cost
solution and do not offer the same benefits as bus, tram or heavy rail.
The main reason people give for employing monorails is their relatively
small 'land' (and air) take. However stations need to be as large as those
required for heavy rail and these would be very costly to build and highly
visually intrusive at the height of the monorail.
Safety and Disability Discrimination legislation requires all new transport
systems to be accessible to all (i.e able to be accessed by those in
wheelchairs), and have a continuous place of safety for evacuation purposes.
This would mean a wide walkway would need to be provided at the door level
for the entire length of the track. In the case of an underslung monorail
the support structures would need to be much larger to support this.
If the monorail were to follow the street pattern in a closely developed
city like London (or pretty well any city big enough to justify one in the
first place) it would be unlikely to be able to employ curves which would
allow a high enough line speed to make journey times attractive. If it were
not to follow the street pattern there would be high property costs to clear
a corridor. Also if supports were to land in the street they could not come
down in the roadway for safety reasons. The insufficient width of pavements
as a corridor for the line therefore suggest that the line would need to be
over the roadway with supports on both sides of the road which would
obstruct pavements and cause considerable visual intrusion. These supports
would also have to be built to withstand the impact of a 44-tonne lorry at
30 mph and would therefore be very large (in fact nearly as wide as some of
the narrower pavements).
The real killer however is the massive cost, low capacity and huge
maintenance implication of any device which acts as a turnout. There are
very few monorails which employ any sort of points at all and this makes a
network of monorails almost totally impossible. (Walt Disney World has a
monorail network but you have to change trains if you want to change routes
and the land take of the stations is phenomenal as a result.)
Monorails work well in applications like theme parks where they do not need
to run above roadways and basically go from high demand point A to high
demand point B, most often in a circuit. Even then they are an expensive
way to do it and I would doubt are commercially justifiable and are
considered an attraction in their own right.
Our expert on the subject reckons that no monorail has ever made a profit.
The German Maglev project was abandoned last year I believe.
Sorry to burst your high-tech transport bubble. I love all these
technologies too but they just can't be made to work at the right price.
Enjoy them at airports and theme parks when you can.
Psi
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: what is the use of a caboose?
|
| "Simon Bennett" <simon.bennett@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:GHCGIB.4Gx@lugnet.com... (...) <big snip> Thanks Simon Facinating what you can learn discussing Lego :-) regards lawrence (23 years ago, 31-Jul-01, to lugnet.trains)
| | | Re: what is the use of a caboose?
|
| In lugnet.trains, Simon Bennett writes: <snip some very interesting info> Good info on the reasons why monorails just aren't that practical. The example people always trot out about the Wuppertalbahn kind of highlights the right of way issues! It (...) (23 years ago, 1-Aug-01, to lugnet.trains)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: what is the use of a caboose?
|
| "Simon Bennett" <simon.bennett@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:GH10K4.B15@lugnet.com... (...) Blackpool? (...) I meant quiet by the way! (...) Interesting. I guess that in some respects the infrastructure cost is not necessarily any different (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jul-01, to lugnet.trains)
|
61 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
