Archive for the ‘Transportation’ Category

Narrow gauge dreams   Leave a comment

So, often when I’m gone for awhile, I’m thinking about one of my subjects of interest obsessively.  Of late it’s been nuclear reactors, intermodal freight and Star Wars.  It is far easier for me to write about one part of  the intermodal freight thoughts than an the others, so here goes.

I like to pretend that I could take over Russia in the early 1800’s, and what I would do for a transportation network.

I’d begin by switching to the metric system, and then adopting a sort of Decauville system, 80 years early.   Decauville had several standardized engines and track systems which worked like a giant model railway, with pre-made sections of track that were made to portable by one or two men on foot.  It was a fantastic idea.  All the trench railways of WWI were Decauville or Decauville compatible.

My first idea was start with the smallest narrow gauge that has ever been profitable, the 400mm, and then advance in 50% increases, like this.

0.4 m, 0.6 m, 0.9 m, 1.35 m, 2.025m, but decided to simply squish the 900-1350mm section in the middle into one, 1m gauge, and simplify the 2025mm down to a nice, simple 2000 mm (It’s only 2.5% difference after all.)  That gives a nice, simple 4 part progression of of.

400, 600, 1000, 2000 mm.    Why all 4?

The 400mm gauge is TINY.  This is why the militaries did not consider it for colonial or military narrow gauges.  Why bother at all?  2 reasons: First, tiny means light, and portability is often an advantage worth the compromise.  They could be reliably and safely pushed around by a single person, something larger ones could not. Remember that the days of these things were before trucks, before conveyer belts, and before tractors.  These toy-like trains were the 4×4 trucks of their day, and thousands were used by contractors.  As you dug a hole, the dirt went in the train. As the digging moved, it was no problem to pick up the light track and redirect the trains.  The second, sometimes inches matter.  A purposed railway through a terrible pass in Burma was suggested to be 400mm because the extra handbreadth of 500mm or more was simply undoable in the terrain.

(Let’s skip the 600mm for the moment)

The 1 m is the world standard for narrow gauge. 750mm up to 1067 (Cape gauge) covers virtually every major narrow gauge on earth.  Oddly, at these narrow rail gauges, the loading gauges are surprising similar, which was one of my reasons to go with the 1 m standard.  If you need a normal run of the mill railroad, with mixed freight and passenger service, through rough terrain, 1 m gauge (or the nearly identical 3 foot gauge) is used worldwide.

2 m is larger than any normal gauge in use, but not as much as you might think.  India and a few other places have thousands of kilometers of 5’6″  gauge (1676mm) rail.  The reason for jumping the extra 324mm up to 2 m is for sake of containerization, intermodal transport and standardization.  The 1 m loading gauge is about 2.25m.  2 m gauge allows you load 2.25m wide cargo 2 across, for a loading gauge of 4.5 m.  They could be double stacked as well which allows for terrific capacity, yet clearly not unreasonable since it is only an improvement over what is currently available.  The 400mm would have a proportionally higher loading gauge, and could take a standardized pallet of 1.125 m (very close to the standard US pallet, which is the most profitable type in existence.)

But what of the 600mm?

It could only take the pallets at single width, just like the 400.  It couldn’t take containers at a 2.25 width like the 1m.  Why then?  The 600mm (virtually identical in service to the 2 foot gauge) has been described as “the biggest little”.   In many places which had both 3 foot and 2 foot equipment, it was the 2 foot gauge that lasted the longest.  This was the gauge all the militaries chose for their military and colonial railroads.  Thousands of kilometers of 2 foot gauge rail criss-cross Australian sugar  plantations.  The promise of narrow gauge was go further for less, and it seems that the 600mm is the best gauge at meeting the promise of narrow gauge.  The 40% larger 1 m gauge frequently costs nearly as much as full gauge, and is only justifiable in very rough terrain.  The 50% smaller 400mm is often just too small to be worth the effort.   400mm has been the choose of odd circumstance and portability. 1 m the chose of common service in uncommon terrain, but the 600mm is the ideal compromise gauge.  Further, while containerization and pallets are nice…they are not the only thing railroads to.  Railways often carry both bulk freight and passengers.  The 1524 mm  loading gauge of  the 600 mm gauge allows bigger cars and comfier seating.  If you truly need minimal, scraping by but barely rail service, 600mm is the way to go.  Also, there are special railways.

The longer and faster the train, the more profitable.  Long fast trains need shallow changes of elevation (not much more than 2%) and gentle curves.  In rough terrain this can be horribly expensive, which is why long, fast trains through mountains are so often 1 m gauge. (Narrower gauge means smaller tunnels, and tighter curves).  With short enough trains and specialized engines (all axles powered) inclines of up to around 10% are possible, but for around 11-24% inclines, you need cog railways (essentially you put a pinion on your drive axle and rack between the rails.  For 25%-50% you need a different kind of cog railway, with the rack making a T in the center, teeth pointing out, and the cogs turning horizontally, 90 deg off from vertical. (For anything over 50% your technology becomes much less a train and much more of an elevator on rails. It’s called a funicular.)  I think that the 600mm gauge should be the specified gauge for cog ways, since such specialized railways are rarely common carriers and often twist through rough terrain. (Yet you want to do it with the largest common, making the 400mm to small.)

So my plan (if I could start fresh circa 1800) would go like this:


Standardized containers of 2.25 x 2.25 x 9 m  (About 7 x 7 x 29 1/2 feet)

Pallets of 1.125 m square for the containers.

Five key features matter when laying out railways: gauge, loading gauge (for tunnels and right of way size), grade, curvature (the radius of turns), and axle load (tons per axle.)

The 2 m gauge would have three standards.  Heavy, Standard, and Light.  Heavy and Standard would have identical loading gauge, but would be different regarding grade, curvature, and axle load.  The heavy would be specified to have shallow grades, long radius turns and high axle loads.  Standard would be just be rougher and slower, but sill made for the same 4.5 m X 4.5 m cargo size.  Light would the steepest (perhaps around 10%) and curviest with the lightest possible axle load, and the 2.25 m loading gauge of the 1 m line.

The 1 m gauge would have 2 standards: Standard and Light. (There is no heavy, because if it needs to be heavy for 1 m gauge, it should be laid as 2 m gauge).  The goal for 1 m Standard would be to meet or excede the right of way standards for 2 m Light standards whenever possible, with the acceptance that some tighter curves are acceptable hear and there, but with shallower maximum grade.  (In both the Light 2 m and the Standard 1 m, tunnels are avoided when ever feasible, with the plan being to put in Standard 2 m tunnels when traffic warrants conversion from either Light 2 m or Standard 1 m). Light would be the steepest, curviest, and lowest axle load possible.

The reason for these over lapping standards is that very lightly built full gauge is usually preferable to narrow gauge.  Narrow gauge is made without the room to grow that full gauge has and costs more per ton to operate.  Thus, it should only be used when truly necessary.  Despite the loading gauge problems of small bore tunnels and the axle load problems of light bridges, the fullest single network (even if some is composed of low grade parts) is better than two separate networks.  If nothing else, the ability to move things without break of gauge (even through a highly restricted loading gauge) is superior.  The reason is that light full gauge equipment has 100% interchangeability thought the network, where as narrow gauge can only be used on narrow gauge.

The 400 mm Standard would be very simple, as it it would be standardized components rather than standard practice, more like laying pipe than laying street.  Being it is designed to set on, rather than in the land it operates in.  The preferred loading gauge standard would be to accomodate the standard pallet, but pallet handling is only one facet of the 400mm railroad’s applications, and should not be a hang up.

The 600mm would have 2 standards.  The Short Term and Long Term.  Short Term would be a scaled up modular “toy train” system like the 400 mm, and subject to the same ad hoc basis. Long Term would be more like a miniature version of the Standard 1 m.


A perspective on disability   Leave a comment

A story

So, I have a disability:  I can’t run 60 mph, and snow and rain slows me down even further, but luckily I have really great piece of adaptive hardware (A Volvo V70) that allows me to have a normal life.  Of course, since I can’t afford one of the better power chairs (Like a Ford Expedition or a M1 Abrams tank), I’m almost totally dependent on the government to provide me an infrastructure that my mostly-smooth-surface Volvo can handle.   Again, fortunately for me, there is a fantastic infrastructure available.  I can use my adaptive device almost everywhere.  There’s hundreds of thousands of miles of paved trails that are designated for people who share this disability.  In fact, normal people, without the same adaptive equipment aren’t even allowed to use OUR infrastructure so there is more room for us, and the unique needs of our power chairs.

Yesterday it snowed, and the city didn’t clear the hill by my house, making it a slippery, icy mess.  All my similarly disabled friends were infuriated by how we were following our civic duty and paying taxes, but the city wasn’t following it’s civic duty and maintaining the infrastructure that allows all of us disabled people to use the different parts of the city.  This is fairly rare.  Usually the city really takes us into consideration with everything it does.  It never builds a park unless we can get to it, and it regularly improves the infrastructure so that I and all my disabled friends to get to more places.  A lot of people have a similar disability, in that they can’t carry up to 40 tons of cargo.  Almost identical infrastructure is needed for their adaptive equipment (Peterbuilts and Macs and such), and every effort is made to make sure they can get to all the stores around town.  For them we make paths a little wider, a little stronger, and parking a little bigger.  For both groups, service centers and refueling centers for our adaptive devices are among the commonest of all businesses.  Truly, we live in a great world for disabled people.

A truth

A disability is a limitation, and a car really does correct your limitations.  You can’t run 60 mph, and you can’t carry hundreds of pounds of stuff.  A car really is an adaptive device that lets you do those things.  Without roads, your car is useless.  You are 100% dependent on the government to provide an infrastructure that makes it possible to use your adaptive device.  I have never heard anyone complain about everyone’s taxes going to build an infrastructure for this particular disability.  If a bridge is needed to cross a tiny creek that separates two business districts, no one even ponders telling car owners to buck up, no one ponders telling the business owners to build it themselves, and no one bulks at putting the infrastructure costs of their adaptive equipment on society.

A question 

Why do people think it’s right to build a publicly supported infrastructure for their inability to be a car, but wrong to build a publicly supported infrastructure for other’s inability to walk?

Edison2 saves the day, if people in the future are more rational   Leave a comment

^Follow the link and read about car called the Edison2. It’s pretty sweet.  It seats 4 people meets modern collision standards.  It tops out over a 100 mph and gets over 130 mpg highway in the internal combustion engine version, and over 350MPG equivalent in the electric version.  As the guy says on the video, you start with a design that uses 250% less power to do the same job, and then you plug in whatever form of power works best: engine, battery, or hybrid.

Two things interest me about Edison2.

First off is the Offenhauser school of design it uses.  Most advanced designs consists of squeezing out the most efficiency possible by using as many parts each doing a small and specific part of the job. Offenhauser design is the opposite: use as few parts and systems as possible each designed as well as possible. Big, dumb, Offenhauser engines were beating gorgeous, complicated engines which were better in theory for decades after theory suggested it shouldn’t have happened.  (Like the year an Offenhauser engined car beat all the gas turbines) Why? 7 major reasons:

(1.) Simple designs are easier to model, because system interaction adds layers of analytical weirdness.

(2.) The models are more like reality because the reality is simpler, so the numbers they produce are more accurate.

(3.) Simple parts are easier to design perfectly in line with the numbers

(4.) Because of 1-3,  simple designs often have higher strength to weight ratios, capabilities to complexity ratios, benefits to ease of maintenance ratios, etc.  Simple, stout designs are often better in almost every measurable way.

(5.) It can’t break if it isn’t there.  The history of motorsports is littered with designs that were “better”, but complexity made it impossible to keep them in the race.

(6.) Sum of losses. Flow through one 60% efficient part  is more efficient than total flow through 5 parts that are each 90% efficient.

(7.)  Ease of repair. It’s easier to diagnose problems in one part than it is a system, and faster to replace.

The Edison2 uses Offenhauser design principals.  Instead of trying to reinvent the car, they took very well understood motorsport design elements like steel tubing roll cage, and simple, robust, and highly stressed engine (40 hp out of a 250cc is 160 HP/liter.) working through a close ratio, many gear transmission, and a body designed to be as aerodynamic as possible while minimizing shapes that are hard to analyze properly  (so they can be as a light as posible) or manufacture cheaply.   I want to point out that it takes great skill to do this.  Any fool can “design” by addition. Design by subtraction requires a keen understanding of exactly what the problems are, so that utility is not lost along with the useless bloat.   Why isn’t such skill used more often?  Let me first say:

Second, the commenters really, really hate it.

It’s not fast enough, even though it tops out over 100 mph.

It’s not pretty enough, as if the universe owes them a aerodynamics that look like Transformer’s rejects.

The engine will break, as if singles break down because of strange magical properties inherent to them, rather than the fact that most singles are designed for low purchase price ahead of all other design factors.

It’s too expensive, as if loads of other custom made, carbon fiber bodied, 800 lb, rear wheel drive, 160HP/liter performance car were going for $20,000.

It’s not safe, (or more accurately they wouldn’t feel safe in it) even though it is.

You can’t take your family on long trips with it.

One particular comment that got me was the complaint it was too airplane like.  Not surprisingly, it is airplane like.  Physics doesn’t really allow for more than more than one general shape that four people can sit, 2+2 in and can be pushed through the air with minimal energy.  So I looked up some airplanes that have approximately the same passenger and cargo volume.  They start at around $200,000 and max out around $350,000.  What does more than a quarter of million get you, besides movement in three dimensions?  600% more power, yielding only 70% higher top speed, horrifically expensive purchase, maintenance, storage, and operational costs, and requirement to get a special license before you drive it.

What do people have to say about them? They are fast. They are beautiful. The engines are reliable. The price is reasonable for the utility. They feel safe in it.  They take their family on long trips with it.

What’s the difference?

Team Edison2 chose to design the Very Light Car (the technical name for the racer) using Offenhauser design principals, and I mentioned this took skill and also something else.  That something else is courage.  Offenhauser design always works.  Even when more complex designs overtake the first design, it only because knowledge of each individual part has advanced to the degree that Offenhauser method can be applied to a more complex design.  And yet it is rare, because Offenhauser design is a lot less sexy than magic bullets.  It takes courage and genius in equal measure design by taking away.  IE, the Offenhauser method is less prestigious.

And thats why all the negative comments about the car, and the positive comments about planes that do virtually the same thing, only badly.  Because fuel economy isn’t prestigious and owning your own plane is.   In the end, saving the environment isn’t a technological problem, it’s a social one.  We don’t win it with technology, we win it with the courage to design our desires and our society.