The reality of it all......
01-28-07, 07:27 PM
#26
Sophomoric Member
I'm ashamed to admit that I just now read the article linked by Tightwad in the OP. 
It's a fantastic article and we should be discussing it! Here it is:
Published on Thursday, January 25, 2007 by the Independent / UK
Saving The Planet: Empty Gestures
Do you recycle - and then fly to New York for the weekend? It's the inconsistency of our attempts to save the planet that really bugs Nigel Pollitt
by Nigel Pollitt
At Christmas I was given a copy of the book of the film An Inconvenient Truth, by the American politician Al Gore. It was from two people. One of them drives an SUV and both are frequent fliers. I was given the present at a gathering under recessed halogen spotlights, a popular system that, typically, doubles the electricity consumed by a room's lighting and greatly increases ceiling heat-loss. Few in the room were wearing anything that, by the standards of earlier ages, could have been considered winter clothing. Some of the food on the table - figs and blueberries - originated several thousand miles away. And, while tap-water in the area is quaffable, bottled mineral water from France accompanied our celebration.
The six adults and two children present were people who, if cornered, would probably say that Something Should Be Done about rising carbon emissions. As well as this, all the adults were cooks, and cooks are the people most likely to understand that doubling a very small but potent ingredient can have a very big effect on a result. Carbon dioxide is less than 1 per cent of the atmosphere. Yet doubling it, which is what we're heading towards, is sending the planet to the emergency room.
This month, the EU's environment commissioner, Stavros Dimas, called the struggle to halt climate change a "world war". The Tories are pitching for an 80 per cent cut in UK carbon emissions by 2050. Even the Confederation of British Industry has a task force on it.
But we, in our homes and on holiday, go on as before. The friend who raved about the Al Gore film whacks up the heat and wears a T-shirt indoors. I bang on about halogen downlights but do nothing about the picturesque but colossally leaky wooden sash windows in my picturesque but colossally leaky Victorian house. If my 1880s stained glass was under threat, I'd get a handgun. What's going on?
"People see it as such a big, difficult problem. They ask how on Earth can they influence it in their day-to-day behaviour," says Nick Pidgeon, a professor of applied psychology at Cardiff University, and the co-author of several studies on attitudes to climate change. "They say overwhelmingly that the Government or international community should be responsible for action, but are not changing their own behaviour because it all seems too much."
It's also about connecting, he says. "We understand the consequences of climate change, but there's a disconnect with our actions. People don't think about climate change when they get in the car. And when taking a risk [of damaging the climate] has personal benefits, there's much less pressure to change behaviour. Getting in the car has an immediate benefit."
And although Commissioner Dimas talks of world war, Hitler hasn't invaded Poland yet. There has been Katrina and some extra drought, but the Gulf Stream still pumps Caribbean warmth to Europe. We haven't seen crop failure in Hampshire. Bread still comes from the supermarket.
There's also that tic that psychologists call cognitive dissonance. If reality has square edges, you file them down. You buy a diesel car. Then you read about the dangers of unburnt nanoparticles, but brighten up when a friend says that diesel cars have lower CO2 emissions.
Last year I was invited to India by a friend. I felt awful about burning, in a few hours, the equivalent of a couple of years of my normal carbon output and, for this among other reasons, did not go. But I could have filed down those square edges, couldn't I? Reduced the dissonance. After all, as one friend said, we only produce 2 per cent of global carbon in Britain. China and India are the problem. The friend who invited me commented: "I think the plane is going to fly that day whether you are on it or not."
My own response was to say, if there were rationing of long-haul flights to a globally sustainable level, I would go. There isn't, and I didn't.
The point is that, bizarrely, dealing with climate change is, so far, presented to us as a lifestyle choice. The current ads from the Energy Saving Trust urging us to switch off are the equivalent of wartime posters saying how it would be really helpful if you could black out your windows during air-raids. Accordingly, our response to the threat of climate change is lost in complex and contradictory individual responses. There's the sense too, of the futility of boycott. Why should I stop flying if no one else does?
As Mike Childs, a climate campaigner at Friends of the Earth, points out: "At the moment the economic signals [to the individual] are that climate change doesn't really matter. The economic signals don't suggest you should do the right thing. So there may have to be punitive taxes on flying to India or Prague, so you say, 'that's a ridiculous amount of money, I can't afford to fly there'."
Should there be rationing? Coupons for carbon? "The idea of a trading scheme, with tradeable quotas, say in aviation, has its attractions," says Childs. "Then it's not all down to the individual." He accepts, however, that there may have to be "catastrophe that creates a groundswell of public pressure" for drastic action.
In the past, wars were won using the brutality of conscription. Cities were defended and populations fed through regulations and rationing. If human populations are to survive against a far bigger threat than Hitler or al-Qa'ida or avian flu, won't governments have to be brutal? Turn off the power, perhaps? It's been done before, so surely it's do-able. We won't fly for our holidays and we won't drink Evian and maybe we'll even enjoy the spirit of the carbon blitz. If we're lucky, the Gulf Stream won't turn off and we won't end up with the climate of Newfoundland.
But according to Professor Pidgeon, we're just not going to change our behaviour enough voluntarily. "We could all end up with low-energy lightbulbs but still flying to the Alps for the weekend. Under those circumstances, a government is going to have to take some pretty tough action."
We are challenged, morally, to change our behavior, as individuals, but the bigger challenge is for our leaders to come up with a proper coordinated survival plan. They'll need our backing.
© 2006 Independent News and Media Limited
###
It's a fantastic article and we should be discussing it! Here it is:
Originally Posted by the Independent / UK
Published on Thursday, January 25, 2007 by the Independent / UK
Saving The Planet: Empty Gestures
Do you recycle - and then fly to New York for the weekend? It's the inconsistency of our attempts to save the planet that really bugs Nigel Pollitt
by Nigel Pollitt
At Christmas I was given a copy of the book of the film An Inconvenient Truth, by the American politician Al Gore. It was from two people. One of them drives an SUV and both are frequent fliers. I was given the present at a gathering under recessed halogen spotlights, a popular system that, typically, doubles the electricity consumed by a room's lighting and greatly increases ceiling heat-loss. Few in the room were wearing anything that, by the standards of earlier ages, could have been considered winter clothing. Some of the food on the table - figs and blueberries - originated several thousand miles away. And, while tap-water in the area is quaffable, bottled mineral water from France accompanied our celebration.
The six adults and two children present were people who, if cornered, would probably say that Something Should Be Done about rising carbon emissions. As well as this, all the adults were cooks, and cooks are the people most likely to understand that doubling a very small but potent ingredient can have a very big effect on a result. Carbon dioxide is less than 1 per cent of the atmosphere. Yet doubling it, which is what we're heading towards, is sending the planet to the emergency room.
This month, the EU's environment commissioner, Stavros Dimas, called the struggle to halt climate change a "world war". The Tories are pitching for an 80 per cent cut in UK carbon emissions by 2050. Even the Confederation of British Industry has a task force on it.
But we, in our homes and on holiday, go on as before. The friend who raved about the Al Gore film whacks up the heat and wears a T-shirt indoors. I bang on about halogen downlights but do nothing about the picturesque but colossally leaky wooden sash windows in my picturesque but colossally leaky Victorian house. If my 1880s stained glass was under threat, I'd get a handgun. What's going on?
"People see it as such a big, difficult problem. They ask how on Earth can they influence it in their day-to-day behaviour," says Nick Pidgeon, a professor of applied psychology at Cardiff University, and the co-author of several studies on attitudes to climate change. "They say overwhelmingly that the Government or international community should be responsible for action, but are not changing their own behaviour because it all seems too much."
It's also about connecting, he says. "We understand the consequences of climate change, but there's a disconnect with our actions. People don't think about climate change when they get in the car. And when taking a risk [of damaging the climate] has personal benefits, there's much less pressure to change behaviour. Getting in the car has an immediate benefit."
And although Commissioner Dimas talks of world war, Hitler hasn't invaded Poland yet. There has been Katrina and some extra drought, but the Gulf Stream still pumps Caribbean warmth to Europe. We haven't seen crop failure in Hampshire. Bread still comes from the supermarket.
There's also that tic that psychologists call cognitive dissonance. If reality has square edges, you file them down. You buy a diesel car. Then you read about the dangers of unburnt nanoparticles, but brighten up when a friend says that diesel cars have lower CO2 emissions.
Last year I was invited to India by a friend. I felt awful about burning, in a few hours, the equivalent of a couple of years of my normal carbon output and, for this among other reasons, did not go. But I could have filed down those square edges, couldn't I? Reduced the dissonance. After all, as one friend said, we only produce 2 per cent of global carbon in Britain. China and India are the problem. The friend who invited me commented: "I think the plane is going to fly that day whether you are on it or not."
My own response was to say, if there were rationing of long-haul flights to a globally sustainable level, I would go. There isn't, and I didn't.
The point is that, bizarrely, dealing with climate change is, so far, presented to us as a lifestyle choice. The current ads from the Energy Saving Trust urging us to switch off are the equivalent of wartime posters saying how it would be really helpful if you could black out your windows during air-raids. Accordingly, our response to the threat of climate change is lost in complex and contradictory individual responses. There's the sense too, of the futility of boycott. Why should I stop flying if no one else does?
As Mike Childs, a climate campaigner at Friends of the Earth, points out: "At the moment the economic signals [to the individual] are that climate change doesn't really matter. The economic signals don't suggest you should do the right thing. So there may have to be punitive taxes on flying to India or Prague, so you say, 'that's a ridiculous amount of money, I can't afford to fly there'."
Should there be rationing? Coupons for carbon? "The idea of a trading scheme, with tradeable quotas, say in aviation, has its attractions," says Childs. "Then it's not all down to the individual." He accepts, however, that there may have to be "catastrophe that creates a groundswell of public pressure" for drastic action.
In the past, wars were won using the brutality of conscription. Cities were defended and populations fed through regulations and rationing. If human populations are to survive against a far bigger threat than Hitler or al-Qa'ida or avian flu, won't governments have to be brutal? Turn off the power, perhaps? It's been done before, so surely it's do-able. We won't fly for our holidays and we won't drink Evian and maybe we'll even enjoy the spirit of the carbon blitz. If we're lucky, the Gulf Stream won't turn off and we won't end up with the climate of Newfoundland.
But according to Professor Pidgeon, we're just not going to change our behaviour enough voluntarily. "We could all end up with low-energy lightbulbs but still flying to the Alps for the weekend. Under those circumstances, a government is going to have to take some pretty tough action."
We are challenged, morally, to change our behavior, as individuals, but the bigger challenge is for our leaders to come up with a proper coordinated survival plan. They'll need our backing.
© 2006 Independent News and Media Limited
###
__________________
"Think Outside the Cage"
01-28-07, 08:13 PM
#27
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: SW Ohio
Posts: 1,258
Bikes: Classic lugged-steel road, touring, shopping, semi-recumbent, gravel
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked 81 Times
in
32 Posts
Speaking of air travel, what I'm curious about is if the old piston-engine planes like the Lockheed Constellation and the McDonnell-Douglass DC-4 were more fuel-efficient and had less CO2 output than jets and if a modern piston-engine plane (or even a turboprop) with today's engine technology would be a viable alternative to jets for domestic and short-haul flights.
I know they would be slower and maybe less smooth than a jet but still much faster than a train.
An expeimental "unducted fan" engine (counter-rotating jet fans outside of the engine nacelle) has been proven in trials to be 77% more fuel efficient than a similar sized jet but is unfortunately horribly noisy.
A cycling club riding buddy of mine is a jet engine mechanic so I pick his brains on some of this stuff!
I know they would be slower and maybe less smooth than a jet but still much faster than a train.
An expeimental "unducted fan" engine (counter-rotating jet fans outside of the engine nacelle) has been proven in trials to be 77% more fuel efficient than a similar sized jet but is unfortunately horribly noisy.
A cycling club riding buddy of mine is a jet engine mechanic so I pick his brains on some of this stuff!
01-29-07, 08:28 PM
#28
Senior Citizen
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: no
Posts: 1,346
Bikes: yes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by wahoonc
I am old enough to remember when buses and trains were the way to travel....now they don't go anywhere and cost as much as it does to drive or fly.
01-29-07, 08:52 PM
#29
Me fail English?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 135
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by gerv
I've thought of this myself. All my commuting over the last year and then I take an airplane trip to visit my mother.
01-29-07, 10:37 PM
#30
Sophomoric Member
Originally Posted by lyeinyoureye
Considering the cost/speed/convenience of rail systems in Europe and Asia, it's a crying shame we don't have similar high speed rail linking the West Coast. We can get across France via the TGV faster than plane or automobile, now why can't we do the same between the desert communities and LA/OC/SD regions, or Las Vegas/SoCal/NorCal/PNW? It's the same greedy BS we've seen since god knows when.
__________________
"Think Outside the Cage"
01-29-07, 10:59 PM
#31
Prefers Cicero
Originally Posted by Roody
Why stop there? They should have high speed trains on the eastern seaboard between DC-Balt-Philly-New York-Boston. And how about the central corridor Toronto/Buffalo-Cleveland-Detroit-Chicago-St. Louis. Do you know anything about Maglev trains?
01-30-07, 12:29 AM
#32
Senior Citizen
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: no
Posts: 1,346
Bikes: yes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Roody
Why stop there? They should have high speed trains on the eastern seaboard between DC-Balt-Philly-New York-Boston. And how about the central corridor Toronto/Buffalo-Cleveland-Detroit-Chicago-St. Louis. Do you know anything about Maglev trains?
The whole paper is good. Very good actually. Especially the last paragraph...
This recipe delivers a total electricity of 79 kWh per day per person (including 1 kWh per day per person from hydro) – more than four times our current electricity consumption. The new electricity production should be enough to cover the requirements of electric-powered transport and electric-powered heating and cooling systems – two of the biggest forms of current fossil fuel consumption.
Last edited by lyeinyoureye; 01-30-07 at 12:35 AM.
01-30-07, 05:37 PM
#33
In the right lane
Originally Posted by cooker
I take the train about once a year from Toronto to Montreal. It takes less time and is far easier than driving, and although it takes longer than flying, it is so much more relaxing for being non-fragmented. Flying, you have all these jerky edits. Get to the airport. Check in. Wait. Board. Wait for the seatbelt sign. Get a pop and a sesame turd pack. Seat belt sign back on. Land. Deplane. Wait for cab. Ride downtown. The train is downtown to downtown and you can book a hotel within walking distance of the station. En route you can doze in your seat, or read, or use wireless internet in first class, and the scenery is great. You arrive relaxed, not exhausted.
Of course, I'd have to fly to Toronto... can I take the Grayhound?
01-31-07, 01:43 PM
#34
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flagstaff, AZ
Posts: 976
Bikes: Marin Pt. Reyes, Gary Fisher HiFi Pro, Easy Racers Gold Rush recumbent, Cannondale F600
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by smurfy
Speaking of air travel, what I'm curious about is if the old piston-engine planes like the Lockheed Constellation and the McDonnell-Douglass DC-4 were more fuel-efficient and had less CO2 output than jets and if a modern piston-engine plane (or even a turboprop) with today's engine technology would be a viable alternative to jets for domestic and short-haul flights.
Both piston and jet engines have seen large gains in efficiency since then, so it's hard to tell how they'd compare now. Would seem that a modern diesel engine pushing a high efficiency propeller would be hard to beat, though.
01-31-07, 04:08 PM
#35
Biker
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: DC
Posts: 1,917
Bikes: one Recumbent and one Utility Bike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Roody
Why stop there? They should have high speed trains on the eastern seaboard between DC-Balt-Philly-New York-Boston. And how about the central corridor Toronto/Buffalo-Cleveland-Detroit-Chicago-St. Louis. Do you know anything about Maglev trains?
Acela Express (often called simply Acela, leading to early confusion with the Acela Regional and Acela Commuter) is the name used by Amtrak for the high-speed tilting train service operating between Washington, D.C. and Boston via New York City and Philadelphia along the Northeast Corridor (NEC) in the Northeast United States. The tilting design allows the train to travel at higher speeds on the sharply curved NEC without disturbing passengers by lowering lateral G-forces. Acela Express trains are the only true high-speed trainsets in the United States. This has made the trains very popular, and by some reckoning, Amtrak has captured over half of the market share of travelers between Washington and New York.[1] Outside of stations, Acela runs at speeds between 75 mph (120 km/h) and 150 mph (241 km/h), depending on track conditions. On the average, however, it is significantly slower than most other high-speed trains elsewhere in the world (e.g., Shinkansen, Eurostar, ICE, TGV).
01-31-07, 04:12 PM
#36
Prefers Cicero
Originally Posted by gwd
He said that by the time he sees someone on the track he doesn't have time to stop. Maybe the curves explain why.
02-01-07, 03:02 AM
#37
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 970
Bikes: Miyata 600, Marin Larkspur, Marin Muirwoods, GT tequesta, Fuji Ace
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by cooker
I take the train about once a year from Toronto to Montreal. It takes less time and is far easier than driving, and although it takes longer than flying, it is so much more relaxing for being non-fragmented. Flying, you have all these jerky edits. Get to the airport. Check in. Wait. Board. Wait for the seatbelt sign. Get a pop and a sesame turd pack. Seat belt sign back on. Land. Deplane. Wait for cab. Ride downtown. The train is downtown to downtown and you can book a hotel within walking distance of the station. En route you can doze in your seat, or read, or use wireless internet in first class, and the scenery is great. You arrive relaxed, not exhausted.
02-01-07, 02:04 PM
#38
Commuter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Southern Maine
Posts: 2,568
Bikes: 2006 Giant Cypress EX (7-speed internal hub)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Roody
When you take a shower, turn the water on for a little trickle, get wet and then turn the water off. Soap up, then turn the water back on and rinse off. This is how my dad taught us to take showers. He called it a "navy shower."
However, I have gone to an every other day shower schedule for the past few winters now. It's cold enough outside that I don't sweat much if at all on the 5-mile commute, so hopefully I'm not too gross on the off days!
02-01-07, 03:26 PM
#39
Arizona Dessert
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: AZ
Posts: 15,030
Bikes: Cannondale SuperSix, Lemond Poprad. Retired: Jamis Sputnik, Centurion LeMans Fixed, Diamond Back ascent ex
Mentioned: 76 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5345 Post(s)
Liked 2,169 Times
in
1,288 Posts
Originally Posted by JohnBrooking
Especially in the winter, I shower as much for the warmth as to get clean. (We have a leaky old house that we maintain lower than 65*F and still use more heating oil that we'd like to or can easily afford.) I know it wouldn't kill me, but I just couldn't bring myself to turn off the water to soap up because it would make me so chilly.
However, I have gone to an every other day shower schedule for the past few winters now. It's cold enough outside that I don't sweat much if at all on the 5-mile commute, so hopefully I'm not too gross on the off days!
However, I have gone to an every other day shower schedule for the past few winters now. It's cold enough outside that I don't sweat much if at all on the 5-mile commute, so hopefully I'm not too gross on the off days!
Al
02-01-07, 05:53 PM
#40
Banned
Originally Posted by gwd
Roody, they do have high speed trains between DC and Boston. Here is a quote from Wikipedia:
Two years ago I found myself at some function sharing a table with a driver of one of these Acela Express trains. He bikes to work. Amtrak lets him keep his bike in an inside room while we passengers have substandard bike parking outside the station. The Wikipedia article mentions the sharply curved tracks. This train driver mentioned that the trains cannot stop in time to avoid hitting some idiot walking on the track. He said that by the time he sees someone on the track he doesn't have time to stop. Maybe the curves explain why. When I take the train I don't take the Acela Express because the fares are so much higher than the regular trains. The downtown to downtown feature makes it competitive with air travel.
Two years ago I found myself at some function sharing a table with a driver of one of these Acela Express trains. He bikes to work. Amtrak lets him keep his bike in an inside room while we passengers have substandard bike parking outside the station. The Wikipedia article mentions the sharply curved tracks. This train driver mentioned that the trains cannot stop in time to avoid hitting some idiot walking on the track. He said that by the time he sees someone on the track he doesn't have time to stop. Maybe the curves explain why. When I take the train I don't take the Acela Express because the fares are so much higher than the regular trains. The downtown to downtown feature makes it competitive with air travel.
a 420,000 lb loco that has 6 axles can theoretically at that weight and traction coefficient generate 126,000 lbs of pull, connect that to a whole bunch of cars weighing in at 250,000 lbs each for example and you can see why they dont change speeds very quickly and grades are a huge huge problem for them
they are also drawbar limited, the coupling at the business end of a loco has a limit to what it can take before it snaps, how much that is I dont recall at the moment, but they still break them from time to time
02-01-07, 07:40 PM
#41
Biker
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: DC
Posts: 1,917
Bikes: one Recumbent and one Utility Bike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by pedex
they are allowed 70,000 lbs per axle in weight, the coefficient of friction of steel on steel runs around .3, they cant stop or climb well, traction is a big problem
a 420,000 lb loco that has 6 axles can theoretically at that weight and traction coefficient generate 126,000 lbs of pull, connect that to a whole bunch of cars weighing in at 250,000 lbs each for example and you can see why they dont change speeds very quickly and grades are a huge huge problem for them
they are also drawbar limited, the coupling at the business end of a loco has a limit to what it can take before it snaps, how much that is I dont recall at the moment, but they still break them from time to time
a 420,000 lb loco that has 6 axles can theoretically at that weight and traction coefficient generate 126,000 lbs of pull, connect that to a whole bunch of cars weighing in at 250,000 lbs each for example and you can see why they dont change speeds very quickly and grades are a huge huge problem for them
they are also drawbar limited, the coupling at the business end of a loco has a limit to what it can take before it snaps, how much that is I dont recall at the moment, but they still break them from time to time
https://www.engineershandbook.com/Tab...efficients.htm
The rails on the tracks are used enough that there isn't much oxidation on the contact surfaces.
I think the driver was saying that the extra speed meant it took longer to slow the train and the train traveled further during his reaction time. The wikipedia article seemed to say that the new technology
allowed these higher speed trains to run on tracks with lower design speeds making the stopping problem more severe than what we should have been taught as children about the inability of trains to stop for us. You need to be careful when smashing pennies under train wheels.
02-01-07, 08:18 PM
#42
Banned
the acela's can lean into turns I believe, the cars are on hydraulic or pneumatic ram type suspensions with active control so they can go a bit faster and not jump off the tracks, been in use in europe for quite awhile, although I cant remember which country got a little carried away and had a bad accident and eventually gave it up I think
https://www.school-for-champions.com/...ionrolling.htm
https://science.howstuffworks.com/diesel-locomotive3.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_adhesion
according to the third link, your .78 is for optimum conditions, expected is about .25, and under bad conditions as low as .05
I know the bigger 6 axle diesels are limited to about .45 by the computers controlling the drivetrain which also help them get a bit better traction by keeping the power right at the adhesion limit when accelerating or climbing a hill. They have to keep all that power under tight control, you can break stuff pretty easy, like rip up the track or break some couplings.
https://www.school-for-champions.com/...ionrolling.htm
https://science.howstuffworks.com/diesel-locomotive3.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_adhesion
according to the third link, your .78 is for optimum conditions, expected is about .25, and under bad conditions as low as .05
I know the bigger 6 axle diesels are limited to about .45 by the computers controlling the drivetrain which also help them get a bit better traction by keeping the power right at the adhesion limit when accelerating or climbing a hill. They have to keep all that power under tight control, you can break stuff pretty easy, like rip up the track or break some couplings.
02-01-07, 08:20 PM
#43
Banned.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 658
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
First of all there are high speed trains all the way from boston-wasington dc. And a connector to take you into newport news,va.
https://www.amtrak.com/servlet/Conten...Route&ssid=134
I've heard anecdotal estimates that every mile of airline travel is 10 times more "destructive to the environment" than a mile by car travel..thus 3,000 miles in an airplane is equivalent to 30,000 miles in a car in terms of emissions, pollution, and carbon dioxide output.
https://www.amtrak.com/servlet/Conten...Route&ssid=134
I've heard anecdotal estimates that every mile of airline travel is 10 times more "destructive to the environment" than a mile by car travel..thus 3,000 miles in an airplane is equivalent to 30,000 miles in a car in terms of emissions, pollution, and carbon dioxide output.
02-01-07, 08:37 PM
#44
Banned
https://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/acela.html
acela specs
we need more and better rail service in this country
acela specs
we need more and better rail service in this country
02-02-07, 10:53 AM
#45
Arizona Dessert
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: AZ
Posts: 15,030
Bikes: Cannondale SuperSix, Lemond Poprad. Retired: Jamis Sputnik, Centurion LeMans Fixed, Diamond Back ascent ex
Mentioned: 76 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5345 Post(s)
Liked 2,169 Times
in
1,288 Posts
https://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepu...rilets024.html
See, if you drive an empty SUV most of the day its OK since you make up for it by recycling!
See, if you drive an empty SUV most of the day its OK since you make up for it by recycling!
02-02-07, 06:41 PM
#46
In the right lane
Originally Posted by noisebeam
https://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepu...rilets024.html
See, if you drive an empty SUV most of the day its OK since you make up for it by recycling!
See, if you drive an empty SUV most of the day its OK since you make up for it by recycling!
02-02-07, 07:19 PM
#47
Biker
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: DC
Posts: 1,917
Bikes: one Recumbent and one Utility Bike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by pedex
https://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/acela.html
acela specs
we need more and better rail service in this country
acela specs
we need more and better rail service in this country
it will be difficult to get more and better rail service. Around here, prime railroad right of way has been taken by various rails-to-trails projects. In a more car free future the resulting multi use paths might be reconverted to rail but it appears that the curves won't accomadate high speed rail. Around here the multiuse path has increased adjacent real estate values so increase curve radii will be expensive.
The constraints on gradient and radius of turn impose severe limitations on the choice of routes. This problem is compounded in developed countries by the difficulty of acquiring the land needed for new routes. Evidently, legacy track designed to accommodate steam traction is unlikely to be adequate for the current generation of high speed train.
