-
The Boring Company has not brought any innovation to its tunnel building techniques. They use conventional TBMs to build their tunnels, just like anyone else. Their innovation is in what they intend do with the tunnels. If they put conventional trains through the tunnels they would have nothing new to bring to the market at all.
While they use conventional TBM, what I hear is that through some clever tricks they can significantly lower the cost of TBM tunnelling. This means that putting Tube trains in Boring tunnels, even though resulting in a traditional looking metro line, still costs a lot less than a traditional metro line to build. -
The Boring Company has not brought any innovation to its tunnel building techniques. They use conventional TBMs to build their tunnels, just like anyone else. Their innovation is in what they intend do with the tunnels. If they put conventional trains through the tunnels they would have nothing new to bring to the market at all.
While they use conventional TBM, what I hear is that through some clever tricks they can significantly lower the cost of TBM tunnelling. This means that putting Tube trains in Boring tunnels, even though resulting in a traditional looking metro line, still costs a lot less than a traditional metro line to build.
You're going to have to quantify that, because they are using the same machine as everyone else uses, and a small diameter one at that. -
You're going to have to quantify that, because they are using the same machine as everyone else uses, and a small diameter one at that.
A small diameter by itself is already cutting costs. Then AFAIK there are mods Boring Company did to their TBM's to speed up the process (also saves money.) Boring Company have yet to publish concrete numbers though. -
The Boring Company have yet to say or show anything more than smoke and mirrors. Making small diameter tunnels is a very normal way to cut tunnel costs. That's why small diameter TBMs exist as standard products. The snag is that unless your tunnel is for something like water or sewerage there is a minimum usable diameter needed to get solid objects through. The deep lines of the London underground train network differ from most metro trains in that they already run in minimal diameter tubes. The trains are heavily curved at the top to fit in those small tunnels, and they get power from the tracks to avoid the need to allow space for overhead power lines. Like so https://cdn.ianvisits.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/20195533/ntfl-exterior-platform.jpg . If you've only experienced the modern metro systems in Asia, you may not have seen trains like this. The Asian ones use quite large tunnels, fairly square trains, and have space above for overhead power lines. They are mostly very shallow, and many were built by digging down from the surface. That's why they choose a different approach to most of London's lines. London ran out of shallow options very quickly, so most of its lines were built using tunnel boring methods (originally using manual labour). London has been using small tube train lines since the 19th century, when the trains were first electrified, and it has substantially reduced costs. All that has been demonstrated by The Boring Company so far is just a car in a minimal tunnel, providing no way for it to flow safely, quickly and reliably through that tunnel. Doing that will require the tunnel to grow.You're going to have to quantify that, because they are using the same machine as everyone else uses, and a small diameter one at that.
A small diameter by itself is already cutting costs. Then AFAIK there are mods Boring Company did to their TBM's to speed up the process (also saves money.) Boring Company have yet to publish concrete numbers though. -
The Boring Company have yet to say or show anything more than smoke and mirrors. Making small diameter tunnels is a very normal way to cut tunnel costs. That's why small diameter TBMs exist as standard products. The snag is that unless your tunnel is for something like water or sewerage there is a minimum usable diameter needed to get solid objects through. The deep lines of the London underground train network differ from most metro trains in that they already run in minimal diameter tubes. The trains are heavily curved at the top to fit in those small tunnels, and they get power from the tracks to avoid the need to allow space for overhead power lines. Like so https://cdn.ianvisits.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/20195533/ntfl-exterior-platform.jpg . If you've only experienced the modern metro systems in Asia, you may not have seen trains like this. The Asian ones use quite large tunnels, fairly square trains, and have space above for overhead power lines. They are mostly very shallow, and many were built by digging down from the surface. That's why they choose a different approach to most of London's lines. London ran out of shallow options very quickly, so most of its lines were built using tunnel boring methods (originally using manual labour). London has been using small tube train lines since the 19th century, when the trains were first electrified, and it has substantially reduced costs. All that has been demonstrated by The Boring Company so far is just a car in a minimal tunnel, providing no way for it to flow safely, quickly and reliably through that tunnel. Doing that will require the tunnel to grow.
The point I was trying to make is that London deep-level tube trains (those curved-top ones) happen to be able to fit Boring Company tunnels . This means instead of cars we can run Tube trains in those minimal tunnels as-is.
As of Asian cities, they are much more denser requiring larger trains, which in turn forces the use of larger tunnels. At least in Shanghai with the exception of a small stretch of tunnel on Line 1, all Shanghai Metro tunnels are dug with TBM's.
I have watched too many Geoff Marshall and All the Stations to not have a grasp on how railways and Tube looks like. -
Quote
That is the common solution to have high speed and low speed trains use the same track but that wasn't my point.
My point is that people are inclined to demand high speed trains stop at everyone's doorstep and don't see that that slows the train down to snail speed.
idea of having 350kph+ trains that do not stop but having train cars that accelerate and decelerate passengers to train speed.
you have two tracks side-by-side. one for a 350kph high speed train on a 1000km loop the express, and the other trains that run on a side catch up track, the shuttles. so the system has 4 train tracks, 2 running in one direction, two running in the other direction.
two are shuttle tracks. and two are express tracks.
when the catch up shuttle train is side-by-side with the high speed express train,
then the passengers can transfer from train to train via a side door way at
with the high speed express trains that never stops at any station!
the transfer shuttle train accelerate from the stations so passengers can catch up with the 350kph high speed express trains.
and then decelerate so other passengers can transfer to stations. also the catch up transfer train can hop between stations.
this would only work in China, because of the massive infrastructure needed for 4 parallel 350kph train tracks
the passengers would need to transfer via a elevator type doorway at the train stations.
not a open platform because of the express trains passing behind the stopped transfer shuttle trains.
this all sounds complicated and it is. passengers would need to transfer via doorway at the train stations.
then transfer via doorway at speed to the express train.
so the design of the shuttle railcar is not the same as the design of the express railcar.
the shuttle railcar has a telescopic transfer door that docks with the express railcars at 350kph +
also the shuttle railcar has a door that docks with the train station doorways, in its opposite side. go figure this one out.
-
Quote
Do they allow standing passengers on airplanes as well?
Many a word spoken in jest, etc...
Skyrider 2.0
OK, I know that's not applicable (each person has an allocated space) but it shows the way they want to take things. -
Quote
That is the common solution to have high speed and low speed trains use the same track but that wasn't my point.
My point is that people are inclined to demand high speed trains stop at everyone's doorstep and don't see that that slows the train down to snail speed.
idea of having 350kph+ trains that do not stop but having train cars that accelerate and decelerate passengers to train speed.
you have two tracks side-by-side. one for a 350kph high speed train on a 1000km loop the express, and the other trains that run on a side catch up track, the shuttles. so the system has 4 train tracks, 2 running in one direction, two running in the other direction.
two are shuttle tracks. and two are express tracks.
when the catch up shuttle train is side-by-side with the high speed express train,
then the passengers can transfer from train to train via a side door way at
with the high speed express trains that never stops at any station!
the transfer shuttle train accelerate from the stations so passengers can catch up with the 350kph high speed express trains.
and then decelerate so other passengers can transfer to stations. also the catch up transfer train can hop between stations.
this would only work in China, because of the massive infrastructure needed for 4 parallel 350kph train tracks
the passengers would need to transfer via a elevator type doorway at the train stations.
not a open platform because of the express trains passing behind the stopped transfer shuttle trains.
this all sounds complicated and it is. passengers would need to transfer via doorway at the train stations.
then transfer via doorway at speed to the express train.
so the design of the shuttle railcar is not the same as the design of the express railcar.
the shuttle railcar has a telescopic transfer door that docks with the express railcars at 350kph +
also the shuttle railcar has a door that docks with the train station doorways, in its opposite side. go figure this one out.
This sounds like a script from a Hi-Sci horror movie... -
Now calculate how many trains you need in total. And the problem I mentioned earlier (people moving through the primary train) remains. There is only one way high speed trains work efficiently and that is by letting them stop at as few stations as possible.QuoteThat is the common solution to have high speed and low speed trains use the same track but that wasn't my point.
My point is that people are inclined to demand high speed trains stop at everyone's doorstep and don't see that that slows the train down to snail speed.
idea of having 350kph+ trains that do not stop but having train cars that accelerate and decelerate passengers to train speed.
you have two tracks side-by-side. one for a 350kph high speed train on a 1000km loop the express, and the other trains that run on a side catch up track, the shuttles. so the system has 4 train tracks, 2 running in one direction, two running in the other direction.
two are shuttle tracks. and two are express tracks. -
This is a train control nightmare, and it is likely going to be very dangerous.QuoteThat is the common solution to have high speed and low speed trains use the same track but that wasn't my point.
My point is that people are inclined to demand high speed trains stop at everyone's doorstep and don't see that that slows the train down to snail speed.
idea of having 350kph+ trains that do not stop but having train cars that accelerate and decelerate passengers to train speed.
you have two tracks side-by-side. one for a 350kph high speed train on a 1000km loop the express, and the other trains that run on a side catch up track, the shuttles. so the system has 4 train tracks, 2 running in one direction, two running in the other direction.
two are shuttle tracks. and two are express tracks.
when the catch up shuttle train is side-by-side with the high speed express train,
then the passengers can transfer from train to train via a side door way at
with the high speed express trains that never stops at any station!
the transfer shuttle train accelerate from the stations so passengers can catch up with the 350kph high speed express trains.
and then decelerate so other passengers can transfer to stations. also the catch up transfer train can hop between stations.
this would only work in China, because of the massive infrastructure needed for 4 parallel 350kph train tracks
the passengers would need to transfer via a elevator type doorway at the train stations.
not a open platform because of the express trains passing behind the stopped transfer shuttle trains.
this all sounds complicated and it is. passengers would need to transfer via doorway at the train stations.
then transfer via doorway at speed to the express train.
so the design of the shuttle railcar is not the same as the design of the express railcar.
the shuttle railcar has a telescopic transfer door that docks with the express railcars at 350kph +
also the shuttle railcar has a door that docks with the train station doorways, in its opposite side. go figure this one out. -
This is a train control nightmare, and it is likely going to be very dangerous.QuoteThat is the common solution to have high speed and low speed trains use the same track but that wasn't my point.
My point is that people are inclined to demand high speed trains stop at everyone's doorstep and don't see that that slows the train down to snail speed.
idea of having 350kph+ trains that do not stop but having train cars that accelerate and decelerate passengers to train speed.
you have two tracks side-by-side. one for a 350kph high speed train on a 1000km loop the express, and the other trains that run on a side catch up track, the shuttles. so the system has 4 train tracks, 2 running in one direction, two running in the other direction.
two are shuttle tracks. and two are express tracks.
when the catch up shuttle train is side-by-side with the high speed express train,
then the passengers can transfer from train to train via a side door way at
with the high speed express trains that never stops at any station!
the transfer shuttle train accelerate from the stations so passengers can catch up with the 350kph high speed express trains.
and then decelerate so other passengers can transfer to stations. also the catch up transfer train can hop between stations.
this would only work in China, because of the massive infrastructure needed for 4 parallel 350kph train tracks
the passengers would need to transfer via a elevator type doorway at the train stations.
not a open platform because of the express trains passing behind the stopped transfer shuttle trains.
this all sounds complicated and it is. passengers would need to transfer via doorway at the train stations.
then transfer via doorway at speed to the express train.
so the design of the shuttle railcar is not the same as the design of the express railcar.
the shuttle railcar has a telescopic transfer door that docks with the express railcars at 350kph +
also the shuttle railcar has a door that docks with the train station doorways, in its opposite side. go figure this one out.
I do note that the Chinese YT video double decker roof-top shuttle train design,
that I got this theory from was a bad & dangerous design, In my opinion.
a train passenger potato slicer or train passenger decapitation unit.
if one is too slow to transfer from a moving train to train roof-top shuttle car.
up a stairway?! so I added my own hypothetical train system or transit System theory. here
update-
computer simulation of passengers is needed to prove or disprove if their is any time saving in this hypothetical train system or
transit System theory.
In my opinion their is passenger time saving over long distance's by the hypothetical non-stop high speed express trains.
however time is lost hopping between local or nearby train stations with the shuttle rail cars as its priority is
given to catch up with any express trains.
my conclusion is as follows. my hypothetical train system is a time compressor between the most distant and nearby train stations.
however no energy saving is to be had as more complicated infrastructure is needed to make it work. -
A train from Hong Kong to Peking with six intermediate stops of 15 minutes each will be adding 90 minutes stoppage plus accelerating and decelerating time. A train that does not stop gains all that lost time.
What high speed trains stop for 15 minutes??
Ave Madrid - Barcelona stops in Zaragoza for just one minute, and Llieda for 2.
and Thalys Amsterdam - Brussels stops in Rotterdam for 4 minutes, Antwerp for 3
...
-
You need to add the slow down and speed up times to get the total interruption due to the station, but its far less than 15 minutes. Most high speed trains in China are only stationary for a couple of minutes at each intermediate station, and they don't spend that long slowing down and speeding up. I'm not sure how long. I've never tried measuring it.A train from Hong Kong to Peking with six intermediate stops of 15 minutes each will be adding 90 minutes stoppage plus accelerating and decelerating time. A train that does not stop gains all that lost time.
What high speed trains stop for 15 minutes??
Ave Madrid - Barcelona stops in Zaragoza for just one minute, and Llieda for 2.
and Thalys Amsterdam - Brussels stops in Rotterdam for 4 minutes, Antwerp for 3
... -
Ave Madrid - Barcelona stops in Zaragoza for just one minute, and Llieda for 2.
It's Lérida not Llieda. -
Ave Madrid - Barcelona stops in Zaragoza for just one minute, and Llieda for 2.
It's Lérida not Llieda.
It's Lleida , according to Renfe.
-
It's Lleida , according to Renfe.
It's Lérida, according to the Royal Spanish Academy.
http://lema.rae.es/dpd/srv/search?key=L%E9rida -
It's Lleida , according to Renfe.
It's Lérida, according to the Royal Spanish Academy.
http://lema.rae.es/dpd/srv/search?key=L%E9rida
I'll let you stand on the platform and tell them they have spelled their train station's name incorrectly, or perhaps suggest they change all of their official signage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lleida_Pirineus_railway_station
-
I don't know the correct spelling of this place, but it seems Spanish tourist web pages use both spellings, even intermixed on a single web page. This https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lleida seems to indicate that Lleida is an Anglicized spelling, and Lérida is the Spanish one.It's Lleida , according to Renfe.
It's Lérida, according to the Royal Spanish Academy.
http://lema.rae.es/dpd/srv/search?key=L%E9rida
I'll let you stand on the platform and tell them they have spelled their train station's name incorrectly, or perhaps suggest they change all of their official signage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lleida_Pirineus_railway_station -
You need to add the slow down and speed up times to get the total interruption due to the station, but its far less than 15 minutes. Most high speed trains in China are only stationary for a couple of minutes at each intermediate station, and they don't spend that long slowing down and speeding up. I'm not sure how long. I've never tried measuring it.A train from Hong Kong to Peking with six intermediate stops of 15 minutes each will be adding 90 minutes stoppage plus accelerating and decelerating time. A train that does not stop gains all that lost time.
What high speed trains stop for 15 minutes??
Ave Madrid - Barcelona stops in Zaragoza for just one minute, and Llieda for 2.
and Thalys Amsterdam - Brussels stops in Rotterdam for 4 minutes, Antwerp for 3
...
"Not a high speed train's bootlace", but I remember many years ago, driving into a very small town, just as the "Prospector" was slowing to stop at the station.
We slowed down from 110kmh to 60kmh to transit the town, & had just reached the 110kmh zone again, at the other end of town, when the Prospector caught us up & passed us.
We had not stopped at all, whereas the train had stopped to set down/pick up passengers.
The current iteration of this train does the 549.5 km from Perth to Kalgoorlie in 6hrs 50mins, an average speed of just over 80kmh.
By comparison, a car trip takes just under 30mins less, & an air trip is 4hrs 30mins,* so even a conventional train stacks up well, when you take limited stops into consideration!
PS :-*Actually, this is bollocks!-----I made the assumption that the Kalgoorlie flights had experienced the same downgrading to small commuter planes as just about everywhere else in WA has.
In fact, the Kalgoorlie flights are still proper pure jet airliners & only take 1 Hr 15 minutes.
The website I cribbed the original info made the same mistake!
-
Here is the longest non-stop HSR ride in China I found: G17 from Beijing South to Nanjing South, 1023km in 3h13min. Said train terminates in Shanghai Hongqiao after Nanjing South with no more stops.
China has the rule that one HSR engineer can only work continuously for up to 4 hours for safety reason. This means that for long haul HSR trains (like the 2760km 13-hour journey between Beijing West and Kunming South, currently the longest HSR ride in the world) requires multiple engineers and has to add intermediate stops at least to change crews.
Here in China it is usually accepted that 1300km is the balance point between HSR and air travel - HSR wins for shorter haul and air wins for longer haul. This means that for those ultra long haul journeys it actually makes more financial sense to add intermediate stops, as the passengers that would take the whole journey is limited. The distance between Beijing and Shanghai, 1318km, happens to land very close to the balance point, resulting in extremely fierce competition between China Railways and the airlines.
Speaking of between Beijing and Shanghai, there are so much traffic between the two cities, Chinese government is planning a second HSR and a second freeway between the two cities. -
I don't know the correct spelling of this place, but it seems Spanish tourist web pages use both spellings, even intermixed on a single web page. This https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lleida seems to indicate that Lleida is an Anglicized spelling, and Lérida is the Spanish one.It's Lleida , according to Renfe.
It's Lérida, according to the Royal Spanish Academy.
http://lema.rae.es/dpd/srv/search?key=L%E9rida
I'll let you stand on the platform and tell them they have spelled their train station's name incorrectly, or perhaps suggest they change all of their official signage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lleida_Pirineus_railway_station
Actually Lleida is the Catalan spelling, and it's what the station is called, it's what is on the signage at the station (see pic above) -
Actually Lleida is the Catalan spelling
Exactly. And you wrote:QuoteAve Madrid - Barcelona stops in Zaragoza for just one minute, and
LliedaLleida for 2.
In that sentence there's four spanish cities, three spelled in spanish and one for no good reason in catalán instead. Mind you, Renfe does that wrong too. It would be the same as saying London, Bristol and Dùn Èideann instead of London, Bristol and Edinburgh. I hope you get it now. Cheers. -
Actually Lleida is the Catalan spelling
Exactly. And you wrote:QuoteAve Madrid - Barcelona stops in Zaragoza for just one minute, and
LliedaLleida for 2.
In that sentence there's four spanish cities, three spelled in spanish and one for no good reason in catalán instead. Mind you, Renfe does that wrong too. It would be the same as saying London, Bristol and Dùn Èideann instead of London, Bristol and Edinburgh. I hope you get it now. Cheers.
I'm not naming cities, I'm naming stations; and I've used the correct spelling (other than ie vs ei in one post) for each of these train stations. By correct I mean the name posted in large letters outside the station, the name used by the rail operator, the name displayed in and outside of the train etc etc.
A city having an 'official name' vs a common name is not something unusual in the world, and if you'd like to go fight other battles on incorrectly named stations, perhaps your next one is getting NS to rename "Den Haag Centraal" to "s Gravenhage Centraal".
But for the purpose of this discussion, your pedantic rants are inappropriate and in this case wrong as I was talking about the station, not the city
-
I'm not naming cities, I'm naming stations; and I've used the correct spelling (other than ie vs ei in one post) for each of these train stations. By correct I mean the name posted in large letters outside the station, the name used by the rail operator, the name displayed in and outside of the train etc etc.
There are even public transport stations with names that are totally irrelevant to the location it is in or the location it serves.
A city having an 'official name' vs a common name is not something unusual in the world, and if you'd like to go fight other battles on incorrectly named stations, perhaps your next one is getting NS to rename "Den Haag Centraal" to "s Gravenhage Centraal".
But for the purpose of this discussion, your pedantic rants are inappropriate and in this case wrong as I was talking about the station, not the city -
I'm not naming cities, I'm naming stations; and I've used the correct spelling (other than ie vs ei in one post) for each of these train stations. By correct I mean the name posted in large letters outside the station, the name used by the rail operator, the name displayed in and outside of the train etc etc.
There are even public transport stations with names that are totally irrelevant to the location it is in or the location it serves.
A city having an 'official name' vs a common name is not something unusual in the world, and if you'd like to go fight other battles on incorrectly named stations, perhaps your next one is getting NS to rename "Den Haag Centraal" to "s Gravenhage Centraal".
But for the purpose of this discussion, your pedantic rants are inappropriate and in this case wrong as I was talking about the station, not the city
Or places have been renamed but some transport names still reference an older name. Case in point PEK and YFB airports