On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 12:26:15 +0200, Patrick Segalla
wrote:

Why do you think that platform height ist decisive for the cost of
platform extensions?

The not insignificant cost of materials and labour for its
construction.

Well, it's not.

I would have thought it would be significant. What do you feel is the
answer?

And why do you think that serviceable (but uncomfortable) old stock ist
acceptable for German commuters?

It can gain new seats for much less than the cost of a new build of DD
stock, as much of it already has.

New DD-Stock in Germany is rather comfortable, I'd say.

Unless it's improved massively since 2000 (when I was last in
Germany), it is not.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To e-mail use neil at the above domain

On 30 Aug 2004 03:11:06 -0700, (Alex Terrell)
wrote:

Which is why you don't see too many of them.

AFAIAA, all non-DMU new stock builds for local services in Germany
have been DDs - or certainly most of them. (The PumA-Modus stock
doesn't count as it's a Networker Classic-style rebuild on old
underframes). They are very common in Northern Germany.

I think on the Freiburg -
Titisee route long trains are difficult because of the curves and
gradient.

Why should curves restrict train (not vehicle) length? Gradient I'll
give you, because if weight is an issue DDs may win by a small margin.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To e-mail use neil at the above domain

Neil Williams schrieb:
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 12:26:15 +0200, Patrick Segalla
wrote:


Why do you think that platform height ist decisive for the cost of
platform extensions?


The not insignificant cost of materials and labour for its
construction.


Well, it's not.


I would have thought it would be significant. What do you feel is the
answer?

I would think that the difference in extending a low vs a high platform
is not significant if the extension is easy to do at all. I feel that
the costs usually arise because of other factors - e.g. if the current
platform end is situated close to a tunnel mouth, or a bridge, or a
turnout. In some caes, lengething platforms on a line may be impossible
just because the cost of doing so at one particular station is
prohibitive: Think of an underground station, for instance, or a
platform on a siding.


And why do you think that serviceable (but uncomfortable) old stock ist
acceptable for German commuters?


It can gain new seats for much less than the cost of a new build of DD
stock, as much of it already has.

But it will be perceived as - and in many cases really be - old and
uncomfortable by train users.


New DD-Stock in Germany is rather comfortable, I'd say.


Unless it's improved massively since 2000 (when I was last in
Germany), it is not.

Well, I think this can be very subjective. In any case, there has AFAIK
been a lot of new DD stock since 2000, and the one I know I find
perfectly acceptable, at least for short-to-medium-distance journeys.

Regards Patrick

(Neil Williams) wrote in message ...
On 30 Aug 2004 03:11:06 -0700, (Alex Terrell)
wrote:

Which is why you don't see too many of them.

AFAIAA, all non-DMU new stock builds for local services in Germany
have been DDs - or certainly most of them. (The PumA-Modus stock
doesn't count as it's a Networker Classic-style rebuild on old
underframes). They are very common in Northern Germany.

I think on the Freiburg -
Titisee route long trains are difficult because of the curves and
gradient.

Why should curves restrict train (not vehicle) length? Gradient I'll
give you, because if weight is an issue DDs may win by a small margin.

Neil

From a knowledge of engineering, rather than trains:

Every time a carriage pulls on the following carriage, there is a loss
of force (to the rails) dependent on the angle between the two
carriages. So to pull the last carriage with force F, I need an
engine force

= F/((cos(X))^n),

where n is the number of joints, and x is the angle of curve between
each carriage.

Lets say radius = 150m, carriage length = 25m, each carriage occupies
7.2 degrees. 8 carriages = 7 joints, I lose 10% of the pull on the
last carriage perpendicular to the rails. This also increases the wear
on the rails.

As said, I know little about railways, but this would seem a logical
explanation.

"Alex Terrell" wrote in message
m...
(Neil Williams) wrote in message
...
On 30 Aug 2004 03:11:06 -0700, (Alex Terrell)
wrote:

Which is why you don't see too many of them.

AFAIAA, all non-DMU new stock builds for local services in Germany
have been DDs - or certainly most of them. (The PumA-Modus stock
doesn't count as it's a Networker Classic-style rebuild on old
underframes). They are very common in Northern Germany.

I think on the Freiburg -
Titisee route long trains are difficult because of the curves and
gradient.

Why should curves restrict train (not vehicle) length? Gradient I'll
give you, because if weight is an issue DDs may win by a small margin.

Neil

From a knowledge of engineering, rather than trains:

Every time a carriage pulls on the following carriage, there is a loss
of force (to the rails) dependent on the angle between the two
carriages. So to pull the last carriage with force F, I need an
engine force

= F/((cos(X))^n),

where n is the number of joints, and x is the angle of curve between
each carriage.

Lets say radius = 150m, carriage length = 25m, each carriage occupies
7.2 degrees. 8 carriages = 7 joints, I lose 10% of the pull on the
last carriage perpendicular to the rails. This also increases the wear
on the rails.

As said, I know little about railways, but this would seem a logical
explanation.

The maths are Greek to me, but the argument is correct. The more vehicles
(more accurately the more wheelsets) the more force needed to get round a
bend.

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 22:39:39 UTC, (Alex Terrell)
wrote:

: From a knowledge of engineering, rather than trains:
:
: Every time a carriage pulls on the following carriage, there is a loss
: of force (to the rails) dependent on the angle between the two
: carriages. So to pull the last carriage with force F, I need an
: engine force
:
: = F/((cos(X))^n),

Resolve along a tangent at the coupling.

Ian

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 10:48:33 UTC, (Neil
Williams) wrote:

: On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 12:26:15 +0200, Patrick Segalla
: wrote:

: New DD-Stock in Germany is rather comfortable, I'd say.
:
: Unless it's improved massively since 2000 (when I was last in
: Germany), it is not.

I find the Freiburg - Titisee stuff very comfy. The curve of the sides
upstairs takes a little getting used to, but that's all.

Ian

On 31 Aug 2004 08:20:05 GMT, Ian Johnston wrote:
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 10:48:33 UTC, (Neil
Williams) wrote:
:On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 12:26:15 +0200, Patrick Segalla
wrote:
:New DD-Stock in Germany is rather comfortable, I'd say.
:
:Unless it's improved massively since 2000 (when I was last in
:Germany), it is not.

I find the Freiburg - Titisee stuff very comfy. The curve of the sides
upstairs takes a little getting used to, but that's all.

Since 2000 lots of new DD stock has been introduced. Most of it is now
airconditioned and has newer, much better seats. Some are now capable of
160 km/h and can sometimes be recognised in the timetable by "RE160".

Grüße,

Rian

--
Rian van der Borgt, Leuven/Löwen, Belgien.
e-mail: www: http://www.xs4all.be/~rvdborgt/
Fix Outlook Express: http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/
Fix Outlook: http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/outlook-quotefix/

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 20:13:07 GMT, (Neil
Williams) wrote:



Mind you, the upper deck 2+2 of the German DD sets, especially the
slightly smaller Eastern-style ones, is as bad. The space up there is
only really suited to 2+1. Shoulder room is especially cramped (you
thought UK tilt-profile units were bad...)

It *is* 2 + 1 in first class. I spent 3 hours on one yesterday
morning. I didn't find the gauge impinging too badly on me, and there
was a power point for my laptop.

No carpets though - it doesn't exactly *look* like first class, and so
thought quite a few people who were very bemused when asked by the
gripper to either move to second class or pay a supplement!




--
Regards

Mike

mikedotroebuckatgmxdotnet

On 30 Aug 2004 03:11:06 -0700, (Alex Terrell)
wrote:

(Neil Williams) wrote in message ...
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 23:13:30 +0100, Charlie Pearce
wrote:

Ooh, ooh, Germany!

And, in my experience, the loading gauge is too small for them, making
them cramped and uncomfortable. The seat pitch is also too tight,
mainly due to the fact that builders seem to think that 2x the
capacity of a single-decker coach is something to aim at.

Are you thinking of the ones around Freiburg? I think they're the same
as in Switzerland, and are OK for medium distance routes, where they
don't get over crowded. I would guess the capacity to be 1.5*. They're
certainly not suitable for dense urban networks - like CrossRail.

They are pretty standard new build, and are in service all over the
country (and not only DB operate them, either). I travelled on one
yesterday, from Rostock to Berlin (which was going on to Elsterwerda).

In a country where the generally low platforms mean that extending
platforms is pretty cheap and easy, and there is an abundance of
serviceable older hauled stock, they seem a nonsense.

Which is why you don't see too many of them. I think on the Freiburg -
Titisee route long trains are difficult because of the curves and
gradient.

You see more and more of them. A lot of the old stock has been
withdrawn already. I didn't see a single Silberling last week. What
hasn't been replaced by double-deck hauled stock has been replaced by
new emu's and dmu's.

Freiburg - Titisee is one of the steepest standard gauge non-rack
lines in Europe. It sees at least one long-distance train a day
though, AFAIK. I don't think length is a limiting factor, as long as
the motive power can handle it.




--
Regards

Mike

mikedotroebuckatgmxdotnet