[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/n/ - Transportation

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 30 posters in this thread.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]




File: 3434h554yntntnyyt-min.jpg (41 KB, 864x486)
41 KB
41 KB JPG
Would modern overland freight shipping in America benefit from a broad gauge rail network like the Breitspurbahn?

Specifially a 10 foot gauge where giant flatcars could be loaded with a total of 18 53 foot intermodal shipping containers (2 across, 3 high and 3 long).
>>
axle load go brrrrrrr
>>
>>1812284
Not really. The cost increases to maintain a totally new rail gauge would offset any benefits that it would have for speed. It also would still get stuck with yard traffic, require the same downtime for maintenance, etc.
>>
It's way easier and cheaper to make longer trains.
>>
>>1812284
Not worth it.
More strain on the axles too, they're longer and flex far more as a result
>>
>>1812284
>Specifially a 10 foot gauge where giant flatcars could be loaded with a total of 18 53 foot intermodal shipping containers (2 across, 3 high and 3 long).

So a single loaded flatcar would have a stack 17.2 feet wide, 28.8 feet high, and 159 feet long. Why not just have 18 flatcars with 1 container each?
>>
File: img-4076_orig.jpg (293 KB, 1100x734)
293 KB
293 KB JPG
Super gauge mega trains are a solution trying to find a problem.
>>
Choo choo :D
>>
>>1812349
there has to be a limit to how long you can make a train
>>
File: soaker.jpg (3.76 MB, 3030x1513)
3.76 MB
3.76 MB JPG
>>1812459
futurewill,,,have,onetrain,,,loooping back to join the tail.,so, length of track.
>>
>>1812456
fuck I hate the fucking design of those things
>>
>>1812284
>All those axles
Yeah that wouldn’t have a fucking bullshit task for mechanics let alone slaves.
>>
>>1812465
I do not like this prophecy :(
>>
>>1812459
You'd think so, but I've seen some beasts in the last year. 13,500' and 35,000 tons.
>>
>>1812284
2 rails is not enough for super broad massive trains
4-rail 2-track trains is what you need. So the railway line is compatible with normal trains too
>>
>>1812459
Practically the limit is how long your signal blocks are. With continuous block style signaling and distributed power you can basically have infinite length trains.
>>
>>1812472
Don't look up Virginian Railways number 700.
>>
>>1812317

I was thinking the main benefit would be a massive increase in cargo volume.
>>
the real benefit would be having an opera on wheels not freight service
>>
>you will never travel comfterbly across the country in a giant hotel on wheels
>>
>>1812807
thank God
>>
File: broad1.jpg (45 KB, 578x399)
45 KB
45 KB JPG
It makes you wonder how after WWII when the American government absorbed all the Nazi aerospace engineers for use in their space program how they didn't do the same with the Breitspurbahn planners.
>>
File: broad3.jpg (15 KB, 579x402)
15 KB
15 KB JPG
It would have given them an enormous industrial edge over the Soviets... at least until they would inevitably turn it into a dick waving contest with their own ultra-broad gauge railway.
>>
>>1812881
Why would the need to? Compare the weight and tractive effort of a Challenger or Big Boy to that of an BR 52.
>>
>>1812575
Most gantry cranes and inclined lifts run on two rails tens of meters apart, even shipyard cranes like the Kochs Goliaths runs on two tracks of a 210 meter gauge.
While breitspurbahn would have only been a few feet wider than GWR broardguage.
>>
>>1812881
>>1812917
Because there would have been a bigger market for high-speed freight trains than there would have been for widebodies
>>
>>1812920

>210 meter gauge

What?
>>
>>1812721
You can achieve that by adding more cars to a train. At a certain point, you wind up needing a larger locomotive, sure, but that's still significantly cheaper than building another full rail system.
>>
>>1813161

You could potentially ship massive objects by rail that you otherwise couldn't, i.e wind turbine blades.
>>
>>1813134
uh huh (lmao COCKS tee hee)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-zq3h92GdM
>>
>>1812721
I believe that was the logic behind broad gauge but in practice it was more expensive to operate (more power, more axle strain, etc.) and overall basically a wash.
>>
They already DO ship wind turbine blades via railroad.
>>
File: 1640654316083.jpg (39 KB, 575x420)
39 KB
39 KB JPG
>>1812284

I think the fact that it was the Nazis who came up with this idea will mean that it will never find practical use.
>>
>>1813571
Well there are autobahns all over America, nothing stopping other good nazi ideas
>>
>>
>>1812284
I can't really imagine this is anymore practical than having longer trains on regular gauge railways. It would still take the same amount of man hours to unload and the cost of upkeep and construction would be significantly higher.
>>
File: wind-energy.jpg (90 KB, 768x307)
90 KB
90 KB JPG
>>1813267
you can already do this
>>
>>1812459
The main limit is terminal capacity IIRC. if you have enough locomotives you can add as many cars as you want.
>>
>>1813903
>good nazi ideas
Autobahns were a Weimar idea.
>>
>>1813903
only good nazi idea was rocketry
>>
>>1813989
Fascists started with the autostrade in the 1920's
>>
File: supertrain-01.jpg (241 KB, 1400x751)
241 KB
241 KB JPG
>>
>>1813999

This show almost bankrupted NBC
>>
>>1813999
Would a gauge this wide work in reality? What problems would it cause?
>>
>>1814736

That looks at least 15 feet. I have no idea.
>>
>>1813999
T H I C C
>>
>>1814736
axles wouldn't support all that weight
>>
>>1812284
imagine if america spend on trains/rails half of what it spents on roads
>>
File: chuchu-3.jpg (199 KB, 1240x1552)
199 KB
199 KB JPG
>>1814954

If only...
>>
File: 1.png (719 KB, 639x446)
719 KB
719 KB PNG
>>
The real question :

Would modern America benefiet from cross country canals?

Transport through rivers is a hundred times cheaper than transport on roads. Europans realized this sturing the middle ages already.
>>
>>1815225
You already have the Mississippi (actually the Ohio river), and what's not in the Mississippi basin is behind mountains or is desert
>>
Why not have a third, central rail for weight distribution?
>>
>>1815234
probably because the rails would inevitably end up being part of a different plane, so the wheels would float over one of the rails and put too much stress on the axles
>>
>>1815235
Ah yeah, solid point. With two rails you only have to deal with the difference of a plane, adding a 3rd to that would just be useless and at worst dangerous if anything at all shifted.
>>
>>1815225

it takes a lot more effort to dig canals than to lay rails
>>
>>1814947
Realistically something that big would be maglev
>>
IMO the weight distribution issues could be solved by scaling up both the rails and the axles appropriate.

>Planning called for a ballastless track (much as was developed 30 years later for San Francisco BART and 40 years later for German high-speed lines) which consisted of two parallel pre-stressed concrete "walls" sunk into the ground, joined at the top by a flat transverse slab.
>The rails were fixed on top of the "walls", with an elastic material between rail and concrete. Because it did not have conventional railway sleepers, this track would also have formed an ideal road for maintenance and military purposes.
>The rails would be either 155 pounds per yard (77 kg/m) (Pennsylvania special; 8-inch (200 mm) tall) rails or proposed 190 lb/yd (94 kg/m) (height-width ratio of 1:1) rails.
>The passing loop length would be more than a mile (11⁄2 km).

I could argue that standard gauge rail technology has just about reached its limit.
>>
File: tim-samedov-1.jpg (217 KB, 1920x1080)
217 KB
217 KB JPG
>>
File: tim-samedov-10.jpg (163 KB, 1920x1080)
163 KB
163 KB JPG
>>
File: tim-samedov-5.jpg (220 KB, 1920x1080)
220 KB
220 KB JPG
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>1815714
>Japanese took notes from this shape to create the Shinkansen
>>
>>1812459
A limiter is the strength of the knuckle couplers, more and more knuckles are breaking and when trains are miles long it can take a long ass time for the conductor to carry a new one back to the car to replace it.
>>
File: demontrain.png (1.72 MB, 1236x872)
1.72 MB
1.72 MB PNG
Like this?
>>
The real question is what can you transport on a 10 foot gauge that you can't tranport on a 4' 8-1/2" gauge that would be worth the upgrade?
>>
>>1815233
canal from the saint croix river to lake Superior would connect the Mississippi to the great lakes



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.