If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.
You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

the slow train

Page history last edited by Andrew Alder 6 months ago

A page on energy issues and probably an unpopular essay

Recently on Quora I posted a long-held opinion that high-speed rail is not a good idea, that what I call medium-speed rail is a much better idea.

I was a bit surprised at the response. I was accused of needing psychiatric care, purely on the basis that my critic did not agree.

It's a jungle out here!

Intrigued by this, I'm looking around, and discovered the Slow Movement. I am not alone! see:

the Wikipedia article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_movement_(culture)
the ABC video https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/futuretense/the-slow-movement/3023556

and probably more to follow.

Why medium speed?
1. For example
Not just slow but civilised
Two excellent but largely irrelevant songs
It would be great to prove them both wrong
More progress

Why medium speed?

By medium speed I mean whatever speed is most energy efficient overall.

If it's too fast that consumes a great deal of energy. To accelerate the same train to 200 km/h requires four times the energy (no, not twice) that 100 km/h requires. Higher speed also requires more energy to keep it there, owing for example to wind resistance.

If it's too slow then that's a more subtle problem, but still a problem. People won't use it as much, so we'll have more use of other means, and rail is a lot more efficient than for example road.

It won't be the same for every rail line or every train!

For example

On the Melbourne-Sydney route it is ridiculous that most containers go by road when the railway line is already there. Even economically that is bizarre. Most of the cost of the road transport is in the diesel fuel and the pay of the drivers. Rail eliminates most of those particular costs, and reduces many others besides.

It's a single track line, so using it well requires speeding up the goods trains (which already have absolute priority over passenger services owing to their greater profitability) and maybe slowing down the so-called "express" passenger trains (but not much if at all, as they are pathetically slow already).

We should have a time window each day in which the trains all go in the same direction. Two actually, one each way. And use on-board communications to improve "signalling" to the point that the spacing distance between trains can be reduced. For example, if one train does an emergency stop, every following train also does one, simultaneously. Essentially we're making the whole time window into one extra long train from a signalling point of view. If the following train has less braking capacity then obviously the spacing needs to allow for this, with a safety factor. And if the communication links are disrupted, everything slows down dramatically and immediately.

No safety compromises. They are a very poor bargain in the long run.

We should eliminate some and perhaps all of the fully automatic level crossings, reinstall real gates rather than relying on lights and boom gates, and have accurate timetables that show when the gates will be closed to road traffic. Most level crossings should have footbridges or foot tunnels for pedestrians (this technical solution was used by the British when they built Tower Bridge which was completed in 1894, and also for another Thames crossing), and for cyclists to walk their bikes when the crossing is closed to road. Many should also have an adjacent single-lane vehicle bridge or tunnel for use by emergency vehicles (they can radio ahead to get priority, remembering that the crossing is staffed) and providing one-way traffic for other light to medium vehicles, with which way depending on the time of day and again indicated on the timetable, so couriers and the like can plan their routes. They will quickly program their smartphones to consult the online timetable as well as the GPS and maps to avoid closures, as will funeral directors and many others.

All intermediate stations need a passing loop. Most have them already! But many are disused, as are many stations. They should nearly all be restored to service. Some stations might have only one "mixed" (both freight and passengers) service every few days, but this great Australian tradition is due for a revival too.

It's all possible.

Not just slow but civilised

Rolling stock

I don't know what they teach railway rolling stock designers in design school these days, but it's not design.

There's an overnight train that runs between Sydney and Melbourne, and the same carriages are used for the day service. During the day each compartment seats three people. During the night those seats convert to two beds, so overnight it's two people per compartment not three. These compartments are in pairs, the two facing each other in mirror-image, with a bathroom containing a compact toilet and shower in between the pair.

All very functional and rather unimaginative. Or rather, it seems functional, but only because the designers didn't think it through.

I booked a window seat. I would have liked it to face the direction of travel (most people prefer this) but this wasn't allowed, but I got lucky. Not that the direction of travel is relevant here but that's another complaint!

The other two seats in my compartment were taken by an elderly married couple. We introduced each other. The seats in the adjoining compartment were occupied by three elderly ladies, a bit too far away for introductions but they looked friendly and were obviously travelling together. As soon as we left the station, the husband sitting next to me was politely but obviously straining to get a view out of the window. I offered to swap seats and take the aisle seat so he could have the window, and we did. And we were friends from then on.

In the aisle seat I was unable to see out of the corridor windows (another design flaw IMO) but was face to face, at a distance, with one of the ladies in the adjoining compartment. We smiled at each other. But then one of her companions used the toilet. We could all hear everything. I will not go into the details but trust me, everything.

A few minutes later the lady opposite me began to look most uncomfortable. I took a guess as to why, and said to the husband now at the window "There's a buffet car on this train, let's get a coffee." He said "Maybe later." His wife said "George, just go." We went. The smile on the face of the uncomfortable lady told me I was right on the money.

We dawdled a little over the coffee (which thankfully was good coffee, credit where credit is due) and I mentioned my theory to George but he'd already made the same guess... his communication with his wife was far better than the brief exchange above might indicate. And as we arrived back the four ladies were all in animated discussion, and the word we heard as we approached and their conversation ended was "Ridiculous!". Yes, we were right on the money.

The trip was many hours (the bus is faster), so from then on we had a code. The lady in the aisle seat would cough loudly to indicate that one of them needed to use the toilet (which tends to be more frequently and urgently with the elderly as I am myself discovering), and George and I would go for a coffee to give them some privacy. On one occasion as we left she said, "Umm, can I buy you two gentlemen a sandwich?" She smiled as she stressed that word "gentlemen" and I'm sure it was a compliment. We both politely refused, but we dawdled a little longer over our coffee.

But with this level of poor design, who would travel by train?