Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
33. Those old stone bridges can take the stress of those trains.
Tue Nov 5, 2013, 01:20 AM
Nov 2013

The problem is NOT the bridges, but the tracks 0n the Bridges. Remember those bridges were built for heavy STEAM locomotives. Steam Locomotives were just terror on tracks and bridges do to the fact their drive wheels were FIXED and thus on any turn put tremendous pressure on the tracks on the the structures beneath the tracks. The stress of a high speed train using electric drive is minor compared to what the old Steam engines did to those tracks and structures under the tracks.

Side note: What we call "diesel" locomotives are in fact Diesel generators that produce electrical power to the Electric motors on the drive wheels. Each wheel can be independent of any other wheel and provide its full power onto the track. This power is provided to the track directly, no left or right push if the track is turning left or right as was the case with Steam Locomotives. The main reason Diesels replaced Steam is that the Railroads could reduce track maintenance with Diesel, Diesels did less damage to the tracks AND could operate on tracks that would cause a Steam Locomotive to go off the track,

In simple terms, the use of Stone Bridges are NOT a problem even if you decide to up the speed of a train in 170 mph. The Tracks would have to be relied to take that speed, but the stones bridges should be all right.

If the decision is to go to MAGLEV, the same issues. The MAGLEV tracks can to based on a Stone Bridge, the problem will be the magnetic track itself not the Stone Bridge it may sit on. It is for this reason it has been suggested that any new track be underground, so to minimize how much above ground land has to be taken to carry the track. Being electric drive, both high speed Steel Rail and Maglev can go underground will a lot less concern with the air quality in the resulting tunnel (i.e. no fuel burning engine to release Carbon monoxide into the tunnel if not enough oxygen is in the tunnel).

Now where the Stone Bridges are may be a problem, in that high speed rail needs more straightaways then slower trains. This is true of High Speed Steel Wheel on Steel Rail or Maglev. Thus the stone bridges may be bypassed NOT because they can NOT carry the high speed train, but the location of the Stone Bridge may be out of the way once a straighter track is built.

we should have it for the whole nation gopiscrap Nov 2013 #1
I agree! Rosa Luxemburg Nov 2013 #2
I think only China has it jakeXT Nov 2013 #7
England had one, from 1984 to 1995, closed it down no spare parts, happyslug Nov 2013 #11
I've ridden on that a few times davidpdx Nov 2013 #29
Kick this one. Kingofalldems Nov 2013 #3
Sounds like a good idea to me. k&r n/t Laelth Nov 2013 #4
Not holding my breath. elleng Nov 2013 #5
Here's an interesting idea: a train that never stops. . . Journeyman Nov 2013 #6
Sorry, but President Christie will shut this down because it creates jobs and helps people. onehandle Nov 2013 #8
Is this going to die, for the same reason it died in the 1990s? happyslug Nov 2013 #9
Thanks. elleng Nov 2013 #10
When this was proposed for Baltimore, it was suggested for Pittsburgh happyslug Nov 2013 #13
AND would never obtain necessary rights of way, elleng Nov 2013 #17
Not exactly untested cvoogt Nov 2013 #12
I did use the word "untested" but I meant "Untested" in the real world. happyslug Nov 2013 #14
Thx for clarification cvoogt Nov 2013 #22
Question: how many people travel between Baltimore and Washington? brooklynite Nov 2013 #19
I have to defer to people who has access to those numbers happyslug Nov 2013 #20
DC-Boston "the only profitable route...and then only by ignoring the need to upgrade" wordpix Nov 2013 #21
Let's hope so. Maglev is a neat toy, but impractical. Xithras Nov 2013 #32
As a Transportation Planner, let me say this is foolish... brooklynite Nov 2013 #15
Right. elleng Nov 2013 #18
I agree with you davidpdx Nov 2013 #28
So much good info from so many of you above! 7962 Nov 2013 #16
way to expensive to be practical madrchsod Nov 2013 #23
transportation of the future Rosa Luxemburg Nov 2013 #24
I was in 5th grade when I came up with the concept of mag-lev trains. AArmstrong Nov 2013 #25
welcome to DU gopiscrap Nov 2013 #27
Nothing new this was talked about in the 80's and it died..... Historic NY Nov 2013 #26
we have some very old stone bridges Rosa Luxemburg Nov 2013 #30
Those old stone bridges can take the stress of those trains. happyslug Nov 2013 #33
Thanks for the info Rosa Luxemburg Nov 2013 #34
Will mass/centralized travel survive the future? One_Life_To_Give Nov 2013 #31
Perhaps future transport will be flying through the air in small craft Rosa Luxemburg Nov 2013 #35
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Maglev train idea for Nor...»Reply #33