My idea on the first 600-1000 MPH train

Here's my technical ideas on having a 600-1000MPH train:

The engine is run by electric catenary and the power goes to a charger battery that then sends measured electric to the electric motors in the wheel chassies. The motors rotate causing the wheels to turn. Any excess power is stored and amplified in a transformer battery to use in emergencies and for other train functions.

The tracks are made of stainless steel and have magnetic strpis on top of the rail and so do the wheels of the train so the train will never lose contact with the rail (virtually eliminating the chance of derailment). The ROW has towers every 50 or so miles that have crew monitoring the track conditions and the tracks and infastructure has sensors that measure and detect any obstrctions, structual probelms, and or bad rail/train conditions. The ROW's are cleared and fenced so there should be minimal disruption.



The Catenary has three wires touching the train. The right and left wires carry the trains power (upwards of 2000v each). The center wire carries the sensor and communtications from the towers, sensors and the Control center.

The braking system consists of a sponge pad that incresingly presses against the wheel at a steady rate and then copacts against a titainium pad that completely stops the wheel. The shocks are titanium tubes that are filled with a dense maple syrup like fuild that fills up the tube at a steady rate until the wheels come to a complete stop.



So, anyone think this is possible?

AMTRAK FORUM MODERATOR'S NOTE

I know what IS possible; and that is a move of this topic over to the High Speed Rail Forum

GBN

This is totally impossible. But it would be nice if it happened. I don't think even the TGV goes that fast.

John

tgv's record high is 260. 600-1000 is way out of range.

Ever heard of a sonic boom? Its loud at 30,000 ft imagine what it would be like 50ft from your house.

practicepro wrote:Ever heard of a sonic boom?

Good point, LOL! However, those born after the early 1970s probably haven't heard one, and may only have a vague idea of what it is.

So, anyone think this is possible?

Absolutely not. All the physical laws are against it. Is this a joke post?

The closest anyone has gotten to conceptualizing a land-based vehicle traveling at supersonic speeds is the "Maglev in a vacuum tube", which anyone can agree would be extraordinarily expensive to build, never mind how much Maglevs cost right now.

BTW, the fastest that the test TGV hit was some 327.1 mph, IIRC.

Irish Chieftain wrote:

So, anyone think this is possible?

Absolutely not. All the physical laws are against it. Is this a joke post?

The closest anyone has gotten to conceptualizing a land-based vehicle traveling at supersonic speeds is the "Maglev in a vacuum tube", which anyone can agree would be extraordinarily expensive to build, never mind how much Maglevs cost right now.

BTW, the fastest that the test TGV hit was some 327.1 mph, IIRC.

I'm not a physics professor. I just thought that the Engine/power technology is certainly there (or else there wouldn't be super-soinc planes), the branking system is somewhat realistic (after all, those concords have to land at some point), and the magnetics could easily be intergrated (think two pieces of metal (the rail and wheel) simply sticking together.

This is not a joke post. How many joke posts have 4-5 paragraphs? I really believed this was possible and looking at it simplistically, it still seems to be.

BTW, they've tested cars that have reached 600-700 MPH IIRC. So even if 1000 is a strecth, 500 is definatley in reach.

Bensalem SEPTA rider wrote: I'm not a physics professor. I just thought that the Engine/power technology is certainly there (or else there wouldn't be super-soinc planes), the branking system is somewhat realistic (after all, those concords have to land at some point), and the magnetics could easily be intergrated (think two pieces of metal (the rail and wheel) simply sticking together.

I'm not a physicist either but here's what I do know. First, jet engines apply thrust out the rear, and can blow away anything behind it. Runways often have thrust deflectors to protect surrounding areas. I don't know how that would work for a train and its surroundings. Second, supersonic aircraft don't go supersonic until they are high in the atmosphere where the air is thinner and gives less resistance. That's not the case at ground level where trains operate. Third, Concordes aren't (er, weren't) going at top speed when they land(ed), rather at about the same speed as conventional airliners. Planes slow themselves on runways by reversing the exhaust of their engines, using deflectors to direct the thrust forwards. Wheel brakes play only a minimal role. Some supersonic aircraft use drag chutes.

Even if those issues are overcome, you still have the problem of the "sound barrier". You can't get anything moving faster than sound without making a hell of a BANG!

I do remember one proposal in the 1970s to tunnel under the contient from coast to coast, and create a vacuum tube with maglev trains to cross the country in a few hours. The plan was to drill it straight through, rather than folow the curvature of the earth, to reduce distance. See the country from minus 3,000 feet.

Here's another way of analyzing your idea: by my calculations, using the typical 40"-diameter locomotive wheel as an example, your traction motors would need to spin at 5000 RPM in order to travel at 600 MPH. For 1000 MPH, the motors would be going 8400 RPM. And while such speeds are possible within the latest computer hard drives, you won't find very many large motors (or wheels, for that matter) spinning that fast for any appreciable time. It's simply too difficult to keep a mechanical device turning at such a high speed without it trying to shatter itself to pieces. So I would disagree with your contention that the technology for such an invention is already available - even from a simplistic standpoint.

Also, even if your ROW is fenced off, there would be problems with suction created by the train moving through the air so quickly. The Germans had trouble back in the 1940s running a propeller-powered train - I've heard reports of cows and people being sucked onto the tracks - so fencing wouldn't be enough protection. The entire thing would need to run inside an enclosed space (i.e. a tube) and even then there would still be problems with air displacement, so the air would need to be pumped out (i.e. a vacuum tube). And refer to the previous posts for an explanation of why that type of system is not very feasible.

Test cars have been able to exceed 600 MPH since the 1960s or so, when a rocket-powered car set the land speed record at the time. That car was essentially a plane that never left the ground, and it was tested out in a vast open desert. With that in mind, why try to make a supersonic train and force it to stay on the ground when it's easier (and probably cheaper) to simply let if fly? There's a reason the airplane was invented.

Actually, most comercial jet engines spin at those speeds pretty much all day long.

Anyway, pushing air out of the way at sea level at 500mph takes enormous energy.

Even at 200mph, it's not easy.

The practical upper limit of rail speeds seems to be 186 - 220mph, the latter is only now starting to be on the realm of commercial viability. Once again, energy usage and such is the limiting factor, not to mention car weight (which is too high currently). The need for high HP is approaching the practical limits for 25kv overhead power - at 9,000 HP, that's over 300 amps at the pan (remember your inversion losses!), for traction alone. or 600+ at 12kv. DC systems, it's out of the realm of possibility.

One reason maglev has been a commercial failure is that it simply uses too much energy - it's actually not much more efficient than flying.

Interesting concept though. Given the infrastructure was there to break the sound barrier, and the system was contained underground for the segments where the barrier was broken, how far underground would the train have to be so the shock wave couldn't significantly reach us underground? Would there be any other dangers such as Earth Quakes and tunnel colapses? Would rail or some other low friction system be the most ideal?
How much shorter would the route be if a tunnel was built directly though the Earth from New York to San Francisco? Hopefully there will be no more noncontructive critisism.

Oh - Mr Toy - Thrust reversal on jetliners actually plays a very minor role in stopping - the FAA's certiication testing doesn't allow the use of it in calculating stopping distances. Rather, it is in fact done primarilly by wheel braking. Reverse thrust tends to only drop stopping distances by a few %. Most aircraft when they land deploy spoliers to get more weight on the wheels fast. a large jet engine takes quite a while to reach idle, deploy its reversers, and then spool up again, and by that time, the plane's already losing a lot of speed.

And, even the largest engines don't make a huge amount of reverse thrust..

"Reverse thrust" is a misnomer anyway. Deflectors are used to point the thrust towards the front of the plane. Most obvious deflectors are those on the DC9 or MD80—two segments of the thrust nozzle pivot to form a deflecting "shield" of sorts that redirects the thrust (oversimplification). (The picture does not show this; but the unpainted thrust nozzle in the rear of the engine is what repositions itself to deflect the thrust.)

practicepro wrote:Ever heard of a sonic boom? Its loud at 30,000 ft imagine what it would be like 50ft from your house.

I couldn't stand that but I'd sleep thru it. Newton's law is against this.

John