Railways set for a hi-tech revolution (UK)

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/travel/story/0,,2121534,00.html

A 30-year plan to transform rail travel with longer trains that can run closer together using biofuels and even hydrogen power will be set out by the government this month.

Ministers are to give more details of a new fleet of inter-city trains, raising the prospect of Britain getting trains similar to the high-speed Velaro recently unveiled in Spain. They will also announce for the first time a 'new generation' train to replace much of Britain's remaining diesel and electric stock. Research will also be unveiled into trams that can run on commuter rail routes and on roads through city centres.

To increase capacity on crowded routes, the white paper is likely to say the latest hi-tech European signalling system will be fitted within a decade so that trains can run closer together. Thousands more carriages are to be ordered so that trains can be made longer.

Double-decker trains are thought to be considered too expensive because of the need to increase the height of tunnels and bridges.

<more>

We need more and better and faster train transportation in this country. We're a train transit disgrace.

even staying on schedule. And I am not dogging Amtrak for that. We love taking Amtrak cross country. But the freight lines own the track and take priority with their irregular schedule, leaving Amtrak stuck for hours, sometimes. So the then the passenger train is stuck traveling late at all stops for the next thousand miles.

If I were king for a day, I would put elevated 100 mph + rail lines down the center of the interstate highways, fully electric. Meets everything most of the real people want. Good, fast, cheap. (which is not what the airline lobbies, auto lobbies, or politicks want). That way, when folks in cars are sitting in traffic jams and look up and see the train zipping by at 100 mph, and costing the riders less than even the gas for the car, they would all get pissed off and want to take the train.

Especially in smaller, more densely populated island nations?

If it's reliability, perhaps a smarter diversified electricity network would be a better choice.

I'd think wind powered trains would be much more preferable than biofuel powered trains -- no air pollution and no land used for the production of biofuels.

I noticed that in there, too.

You are completely correct that direct electric drive is the way to go. Pick up the power and do not carry it along. Faster, cheaper, simple. And if fuel diversity is desired, it can be done by various type generation sites.

It is not just true for trains, but also road-based vehicles, such as cars and semi-trucks. Pick up power from a grid-enabled highway, and off you go. No fuel, no pollution (depending on the electric source) not even any batteries, unless you want to travel off the grid. It requires no exposed electrical parts and can be made intrinsically safe (completely shock proof) so there is no "hot rail" like in the now ancient :) subways.

But I have been watching this for a while. I am an electrical energy engineer and get drawn into these discussions on the real practical application end.

Here is what I have seen -- The idea of even being able to abandon conventional fuels completely freaks out the upper-end corporate folks. So anytime you do a proposal, you have to allow for that to be mentioned in there, and then things are ok.



Really bizarre to watch.

... when the powered rails are out of pedestrian reach, behind cars, trucks and busses zooming past at 70mph.

There are too many powerful people making too much money from the existing "gas pump" transportation system.

Each passenger had a set of pedals, and a counter. If he pedaled more or less than his share of the energy cost of his trip, the difference was made up in cash.:)