Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: pak128.USA (Read 174491 times) previous topic - next topic

Re: pak128.USA

Reply #210 –
When I said that the US had the first locomotive to exceed 100, I meant NYC's 999, and the book that I read that described it said it hit 112, and did not say that in reality it only hit 82. It is similar about the Mallard. I read a book on steam trains that was published many years ago, before a lot of  this was known, or it contained inadequate research so it was incorrect. When I said the US designed the first motorcars, I actually meant we were the first to pump petroleum. I apologize for writing these incorrect things on this forum.

Re: pak128.USA

Reply #211 –
Well, I am not ment to be nationalistic or so, but the first oil wells were done ca. 340 in china and even japan knows of petroleum in 7th century (according to encyclopedia brittanica). Even in the middle east they used petroleum and tar for paving streets in bagdad in 8th century ...

But I think this goes very much offtopic, and is better servered in the Lounge, while in the other paks rather the actual progress of the (very  much sought after) pakUSA should be discussed.

Re: pak128.USA

Reply #212 –
Quote from: prissi – on
Even in the middle east they used petroleum and tar for paving streets in bagdad in 8th century ...
This usage of petroleum is much older, they paved already the streets in ancient Babylon (around 1700 B.C.) with it and used it for hydro-isolation (houses, irrigation and boat-channels).

But here we are speaking about "natural" asphalt/petroleum that you can obtain from asphalt-lakes or from the ground, digging down until you reach the petroleum horizont - not pumping it from deep deposits. At least for construction purposes this so called natural asphalt has a much higher quality than the refined one and is still used: http://www.trinidad-lake-asphalt.de/english/index.php

Re: pak128.USA

Reply #213 –
Hello everyone;

I know I have been absent for a couple months, but rest ****ured I have been working on this project. Currently I am working on re-aligning, re-balancing, and adding night lights to Raven's USA locomotives. I quickly found that Raven's locomotives are generic and can stand in for numerous models, so the entire history of diesel locomotives in the US can pretty much be represented without having to paint very many new objects. About 40 locomotives have been finished so far, although stats still need tweaking.

One problem I noticed was American diesel locomotives actually peaked in top speed at 113 km/h in the 1970s. Freight locomotives have not increased in speed since that date, largely due to strict regulations that set high infrastructure requirements for anything above 113 km/h. Not sure how to handle this problem yet..

Re: pak128.USA

Reply #214 –
Quote from: rfg123 – on
One problem I noticed was American diesel locomotives actually peaked in top speed at 113 km/h in the 1970s. Freight locomotives have not increased in speed since that date, largely due to strict regulations that set high infrastructure requirements for anything above 113 km/h. Not sure how to handle this problem yet..
I say do like the real guys:  p****enger locomotives should be geared for speed and not power, while freight engines should be geared for power and not speed.  The max speed of freight locos can be 113, but the locomotives should be balanced so that the stronger locomotive costs more, and needs to pull more to be profitable compared to the smaller locomotive.

Re: pak128.USA

Reply #215 –
one possible way is to make the rolling stock heavier and be able to carry more.
double stack containers and triple deck auto racks are not an unusual sight in some places.

p****enger trains sort of died out, starting around the 70's to the 90's due to the pricing and speed competitiveness of airlines and coach buses. There are still commuter lines, but by far, the most popular choice is a personal car.

One thing that makes rail so slow, is that the railway operators don't bother upgrading or adding more tracks to a line and run really long freight trains at a slow speed. It's not unusual to have a freight train consisting of more 3 or more engines and hauling 50~100 freight wagons.
On average, I think it's around 25 to 40 freight wagons per engine doing 80 to 100km/h, depending on terrain.

Re: pak128.USA

Reply #216 –
ot: those engines fascinated me quite a lot since i arrived here. very primitive, but apparently still economically enough. I live 1km away from the tracks in downtown toronto and i can hear the engines, that's the actual motors!

I only had the luck to see one of the trains rolling once so far. in fact 3 trains where running partially parallel. one extremely long, from the second i saw only the end, but the third one -- behind the second -- i saw entirely. I lost count, but the length was between 40 and 50 cars, with double stacked containers. Obviously no tunnels or catenary in eastern canada! The first train could have been even longer, i couldn't see beginning or end.

Quite fascinating was also to watch, and more importantly listen, to it stopping and starting again at a signal. I was surprised how much the space between wagons changes.


back on topic:
those extra long trains are rather unwieldy in simutrans. Platform lenghts of 20 or even 30 would be required.


ps.: i went on a trip to montreal, in summer. just 600 km, but definitely too far to use a car. it took me 7h with the bus. a pitty there's no usable p****enger rail network available.

Re: pak128.USA

Reply #217 –
Quote from: sdog – on
I lost count, but the length was between 40 and 50 cars, with double stacked containers. Obviously no tunnels or catenary in eastern canada!
There are a few tunnels in eastern Canada, and I know at least one in northern New Brunswick which was modified 20 years ago to allow for double stacks.  The 2nd St. Clair tunnel between the US and Canada (Sarnia, Ontario) was built with double-stacks in mind.  http://www.tunnels.mottmac.com/projects/?id=3352&mode=type.  There is catenary in Montreal, but no freight trains use that line.

Quote from: sdog – on
ps.: i went on a trip to montreal, in summer. just 600 km, but definitely too far to use a car. it took me 7h with the bus. a pitty there's no usable p****enger rail network available.
VIA Rail is actually not that bad on the Quebec-Windsor corridor, Toronto-Montreal is usually a 5h trip, and there are plenty of trains.  I find it more confortable than the bus, and often less of a h****le than flying.  Toronto-Vancouver is another story, I don't think I could stay on a train for 5 days.