lockmat Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 This idea was first mentioned in alternative options for Metro in the posted thread, but nobody else mentioned it. This seems like such a great idea. Does anyone have some experience with this?http://www.houstonarchitecture.com/haif/index.php?showtopic=511&view=findpost&p=4780Tubular Rail Inc: http://www.houstonarchitecture.com/haif/index.php?showtopic=511&view=findpost&p=4780 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToryGattis Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 For what it's worth, I showed it to a mechanical engineer friend of mine a number of years ago, and here was his response:I am in pain from such laughter. The concept has been proposed for longintercity routes, where it almost makes sense to put the structure in thetrain rather than the on the ground. But a 5000' turning radius in thecity?? This is an even worse idea than that damn train that held me up for10 minutes this morning by my house... (Main St. LRT)A simple cost model would show that, while visually sparser, having to putmotive elements in every stanchion would be insanely expensive. And themassive load on the drive elements, plus the fact that they have to begentle, like tires, would make the whole thing either extremelyuncomfortable, or reliant on a bunch of new, unproven stuff. Makes maglevmonorail look downright sensible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertphou Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 This idea was first mentioned in alternative options for Metro in the posted thread, but nobody else mentioned it. This seems like such a great idea. Does anyone have some experience with this?http://www.houstonar...findpost&p=4780Tubular Rail Inc: http://www.houstonar...findpost&p=4780What would you like to know? There are several patents on the system and costs have been vetted by the Thayer School of Engineering at Dartmouth. The mechanical engineer quoted below assumes that the additional costs of distributed power would be more than savings generated by this design. If an individual column cost $400,000 installed the system would work out to $20,000,000 million a mile versus Metro costs of $83,000,000 per mile for the next phase of light rail. Some locations would not be suitable due to topography or tight turns but this has to be balanced with cost savings and ease of installation. Remember, elevators don't make any turns and our estimate for the North American market is about 30,000 miles of suitable routes. Further, at high speed, turns are limited not by the mechanical characteristics of the train but rather the lateral forces on the passenger. The UIC, (Europe's FRA) has a 7000 meter radii for 300kph speeds.Robert PulliamTubular Rail Inc.Houston TX713 681 9501 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 What would you like to know? There are several patents on the system and costs have been vetted by the Thayer School of Engineering at Dartmouth. The mechanical engineer quoted below assumes that the additional costs of distributed power would be more than savings generated by this design. If an individual column cost $400,000 installed the system would work out to $20,000,000 million a mile versus Metro costs of $83,000,000 per mile for the next phase of light rail. Some locations would not be suitable due to topography or tight turns but this has to be balanced with cost savings and ease of installation. Remember, elevators don't make any turns and our estimate for the North American market is about 30,000 miles of suitable routes. Further, at high speed, turns are limited not by the mechanical characteristics of the train but rather the lateral forces on the passenger. The UIC, (Europe's FRA) has a 7000 meter radii for 300kph speeds.Robert PulliamTubular Rail Inc.Houston TX713 681 9501Very interesting. But aren't you comparing total system costs for Metro Solutions with merely the costs of the columns for the Tubular Rail? What about stations and rail cars? (and I'm guessing these cars would be very expensive) (And do you have a basis for your assumption of $400,000 per column cost?It's a really intriguing concept. Appears to be better suited to long distance than inner city service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertphou Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 Very interesting. But aren't you comparing total system costs for Metro Solutions with merely the costs of the columns for the Tubular Rail? What about stations and rail cars? (and I'm guessing these cars would be very expensive) (And do you have a basis for your assumption of $400,000 per column cost?It's a really intriguing concept. Appears to be better suited to long distance than inner city service.The 83 million cost for Metro are only for construction as stated in the contract, rolling stock, land asquisistion and interests will drive total cost to about 150 million a mile. As to the cost of our cars, you have to look at it on a per seat basis and when you do the TR car is very competitive with light rail rolling stock costs. The cost of the column has been vetted and reviewed and includes the propulsion and controls which are part of the system and not the cars. We would be willing to review these costs with the Metro Board or any government entity but..., well others have made comments about Metro's leadership so I won't go there. Perhaps the next Mayor will be more concerned with the taxpayers money.Regards,rp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 The 83 million cost for Metro are only for construction as stated in the contract, rolling stock, land asquisistion and interests will drive total cost to about 150 million a mile. As to the cost of our cars, you have to look at it on a per seat basis and when you do the TR car is very competitive with light rail rolling stock costs. The cost of the column has been vetted and reviewed and includes the propulsion and controls which are part of the system and not the cars. We would be willing to review these costs with the Metro Board or any government entity but..., well others have made comments about Metro's leadership so I won't go there. Perhaps the next Mayor will be more concerned with the taxpayers money.Regards,rpVery interesting. Has anyone else taken a serious look at your product? Has anyone gone forward with it?Edit: Where are you getting your Metro numbers? I believe the contract was for $1.46 Billion, covering approximately 20 miles of new rail. That comes to only $73M per mile, not 83. Furthermore,the contract includes 29 vehicles. Does your per/column number provide any stations? Does it include utility costs? Does it include operations and maintenance facilities? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 Like most unproven transit technologies, the concept is long on claims and short on details. The TR people claim a cost of $400K per column/$20 million per mile. That means column spacing of about 100 feet. The illustrations seems to show considerably shorter column spacing. They also claim that the vehicle will always be supported by 3 or 4 columns. That means the vehicle must be in excess of 300 feet long. Just think about the engineering problems involved in designing a narrow, lightweight rigid vehicle of that length that would stand up to the stresses it would face.There is no mention of how track switches would be built. The illustration of the end-of-line "turntable" is comical. The fact that patents on the system have been issued only means that the idea is novel, not that it will necessarily work (or cost) as envisioned.The history of transportation is littered with proposals to replace traditional rail-based technology, which has enjoyed over a century of technical refinement and standardization. Those cities which have adopted novel technologies (eg. Vancouver Skytrain, various European guided-bus systems, VAL) generally regret the decision, especially after the creator of the proprietary technology goes out of business and there is no one else to support it.I'm sure the advocates of tubular rail believe in their concept. Let them privately finance a full-size demonstration line and then we can have a fact-based discussion of the merits of the system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 The 83 million cost for Metro are only for construction as stated in the contract, rolling stock, land asquisistion and interests will drive total cost to about 150 million a mile. As to the cost of our cars, you have to look at it on a per seat basis and when you do the TR car is very competitive with light rail rolling stock costs. The cost of the column has been vetted and reviewed and includes the propulsion and controls which are part of the system and not the cars. We would be willing to review these costs with the Metro Board or any government entity but..., well others have made comments about Metro's leadership so I won't go there. Perhaps the next Mayor will be more concerned with the taxpayers money.Regards,rpVery interesting. Has anyone else taken a serious look at your product? Has anyone gone forward with it?Edit: Where are you getting your Metro numbers? I believe the contract was for $1.46 Billion, covering approximately 20 miles of new rail. That comes to only $73M per mile, not 83. Furthermore,the contract includes 29 vehicles. Does your per/column number provide any stations? Does it include utility costs? Does it include operations and maintenance facilities?No answers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 No answers?don't respond to yourself! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.