Of Oil And Planes

Post by Daniel
Boeing has just released an updated 20-year forecast for worldwide
aircraft market towering at $2.6 trillion. What's striking is the $50
barrel price projection for average quality (?) crude over the next 20
years to support those numbers.

There is conclusive proof, even within the USA, that global warming is a
very serious problem. In the next 20 years, the USA, China and others
will have to adopt even stricter-than-Kyoto rules (the longer you wait
to start curbing emissions, the higher the cost and disruption to the
economy.) And even Kyoto signatories will have to get their act together
and really implement measures to meet their goals. (and those goals will
have to be moved to further reduce emissions).

This is potentially a far greater impact on air travel than the actual
price of crude oil.

It would also impact the air courriers whose fleets still have some
rather old aircraft.

Can't remember the number, but BBC recently quoted some percentage of
worldwide CO2 emissions produced by commercial aviation. It was not a
trivial amount, and now, the EU is considering forcing commercial
airlines to become part of Kyoto and be given emissions quotas (and
possibility to buy/sell credits).

Under CO2 trading schemes, airlines would have to reduce emissions or
buy CO2 credits.

-Meet your quota and you are "neutral"

-Come out below your quota, and you make money selling credits to others
(high profit and/or lower ticket prices)

-Come out above quota and you have to buy credits from others, (lower
profits and/or higher ticket prices).

What is not clear is how quotas for airlines would be set. From a
planetary scale, they would have to reduce total aviation emissions.
Given a limited set of quotas, airlines would fight for those quotas, a
bit like they fight for limited slots at Heathrow.

And this means that airlines would have to rethink their schedules and
fleets. Given a 1000 tonne CO2 credit, which fleet/schedule philosphy
will get you more profit ? Frequent short hauls on narrowbody, or daily
long hauls on 747/380 type of aircrtaft ? Or will the 787/350 provide
more bang for the buck with newer generation engines that pollute less ?

Will all short hauls be relegated to train or turboprops ?

What happens to Ryannair, Southwest, Easyjet etc whose quotas may no
longer allow them to fly their existing schedules ?

In such an environment, growth could happen only with new, less
polluting aircraft that would allow an airline to have more flights and
thus carry more passengers.
.
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

Tom Sanderson

2006-07-19 13:30:52 UTC

I think we'll find that the US and China will be the last ones to comply
with Kyoto-type rules, as it will cost them more than anybody else and
they're both large enough to just ignore the treaties without meaningful
consequences.

Post by JF Mezei
And this means that airlines would have to rethink their schedules and
fleets. Given a 1000 tonne CO2 credit, which fleet/schedule philosphy
will get you more profit ? Frequent short hauls on narrowbody, or daily
long hauls on 747/380 type of aircrtaft ?

Short haul. Fuel is a much smaller percentage of the overall bill on short
haul.

Post by JF Mezei
What happens to Ryannair, Southwest, Easyjet etc whose quotas may no
longer allow them to fly their existing schedules ?

Nothing. Even if they're governments buy in to it, they'll exempt their
major air carriers since there's too much low hanging fruit elsewhere.

Global warming/CO2 is just as much a political problem as it is a scientific
one...the "solutions" will be governed by the politicians, not the
engineers. Unfortunately.

Tom.
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

JF Mezei

2006-07-19 17:20:47 UTC

Post by Tom Sanderson
I think we'll find that the US and China will be the last ones to comply
with Kyoto-type rules, as it will cost them more than anybody else and
they're both large enough to just ignore the treaties without meaningful
consequences.

Remember the ozone hole ? Politicians kept dismissing this as some tree
hugger problem until hard science came out and they were forced to sign
a deal which forced industry to phase out CFCs. It was very quick for
spray cans, and took/taking longer for refrigiration equipment.

Eventually, even the USA will have to stop denying it is a very serious
problem, one which, if nothing is done, will flood much of florida and
cause great deal of damage to coastal regions (and yes, that includes
Boston, New York etc).

Once the USA takes the problem seriously, other countries will follow
suit.

The longer this is delayed, the harder it will be when actions are
taken. But it will happen within the next 20 years.

Consider the current infrastructure and pipelines to deliver jet fuel to
airports around the world. Converting aircraft to hydrogen won't be
easy because there is no infrastructure to deliver fuel to airports for
one thing. And if aircraft remain jet fuel based, then there will be
consequences in terms of limits on how much emissions they are allowed
to emit.

Post by Tom Sanderson
Short haul. Fuel is a much smaller percentage of the overall bill on short
haul.

The planet doesn't care about costs. It cares about amount of emissions
into atmosphere. Politicians will need to consider the impact of either
limiting air travel alltogether, or favouring long hauls over short
hauls and building bus/train lines to replace short hauls. (or return of
turboprops). This isn't something which will be implemented fully
within teh next 20 years, but the decisions will have to be taken "soon"
and set the direction.

Post by Tom Sanderson
Nothing. Even if they're governments buy in to it, they'll exempt their
major air carriers since there's too much low hanging fruit elsewhere.

This may be changing soon with the EU wanting to include air carriers
into CO2 trading schemes. And this may force even US carriers who fly
into the EU to participate.

Post by Tom Sanderson
Global warming/CO2 is just as much a political problem as it is a scientific
one...the "solutions" will be governed by the politicians, not the
engineers.

Correct. But the more you wait to take action, the harsher those actions
will have to be, and the tougher the job of politicians will be to
decide how to tackle this.

China and India are hard problems. While it is easy to convince them to
abide by environmental rules, they will insist that their population be
given the same quota as american population. And in order to allow 2
billion people to move into the 21st century while reducing overall
emissions, it means that those who pollute now will have to reduce even
more their emissions to allow China to develop.
.
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

Daniel

2006-07-19 15:18:33 UTC

Post by JF Mezei
There is conclusive proof, even within the USA, that global warming is a
very serious problem. In the next 20 years, the USA, China and others
will have to adopt even stricter-than-Kyoto rules (the longer you wait
to start curbing emissions, the higher the cost and disruption to the
economy.)

Agree. But what we're seeing instead is Canada opting out of Kyoto,
Alberta SAGD extraction with tar sands being chiefly responsible for
increased emissions there. Collectively taken, European signatory
nations are set to miss their targets.

Post by JF Mezei
Can't remember the number, but BBC recently quoted some percentage of
worldwide CO2 emissions produced by commercial aviation. It was not a
trivial amount, and now, the EU is considering forcing commercial
airlines to become part of Kyoto and be given emissions quotas (and
possibility to buy/sell credits).

That European Parliament initiative was swiftly countered by interests
in the travel industry. There are good lobbyists in Brussels. Plus
Europe just relies too much on tourism (which should be fine).

Post by JF Mezei
What is not clear is how quotas for airlines would be set. From a
planetary scale, they would have to reduce total aviation emissions.
Given a limited set of quotas, airlines would fight for those quotas, a
bit like they fight for limited slots at Heathrow.

On the other hand, each country should be left to decide what sectors
should retain privileged access to the resource, and this happens
through fiscal policies controlled by national parliaments. Filling a
gas tank in Europe costs $100, mainly taxes. There are good public
transportation infrastructures. Heating fuel or diesel fuel used by
farmers and fishermen are not that much taxed, that's why they add a
red color additive just to check the John Deere tank doesn't leak into
the family sedan's tank. There are countries that may put air travel
(tourism) ahead of agriculture or industry in their priorities. How do
they claim for more pollution rights under this system without taxing
their specific economy? (Assuming Jet-A price needs be even
geographically to avoid silly aircraft movements).

Post by JF Mezei
What happens to Ryannair, Southwest, Easyjet etc whose quotas may no
longer allow them to fly their existing schedules ?

They will loose some of their competitive advantage as fuel costs
becomes a bigger portion of the airfares. On the other hand, they are
good at filling their planes with more flexibility.

Post by JF Mezei
In such an environment, growth could happen only with new, less
polluting aircraft that would allow an airline to have more flights and
thus carry more passengers.

Agree. But we should not overestimate our capacity to address this
issue with technology. May not deliver enough.
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

JF Mezei

2006-07-19 17:41:01 UTC

Post by JF Mezei
What happens to Ryannair, Southwest, Easyjet etc whose quotas may no
longer allow them to fly their existing schedules ?

They will loose some of their competitive advantage as fuel costs
becomes a bigger portion of the airfares. On the other hand, they are
good at filling their planes with more flexibility.

Do you really think that carrying football fans from england to
netherlands just so they can attend a football match is worthy of the
CO2 emissions that this activity generates ?

This is truly the ultimate in discretionary air travel. Taking a flight
just to watch a sports event. Increase the prices enough, and you lose
all of that business. They'll watch the matches on large screen TVs at home.

Increase the prices just enough and airlines like Ryannair/Easyjet may
lose enough business that they no longer have the critical mass to
remain profitable at such low prices.

Southwest and JetBlue would be less affected because their prices are
not ridiculously low and the truly "fly instead of take the subway to
the stadium" type of customers is not a significant portion of their
customer base. But they do seem to have a lot of family travel and this
may be curbed with higher prices.

Southwest in the USA became succesful because it was possible to operate
at low cost, and the legacy carriers milked customers for everything
they got. But with price of oil going up, even Southwest will
eventually have to raise its fares significantly and no matter how
efficienctly they may be runned, their ticket prices may have to be
raised above levels where americans fly for discretionary travel.

Consider the current scenario where the 2 biggest polluters in the world
(USA and China) don't do much to curb fuel consumption. The price of oil
is skyrocketing. So if they continue to avoid the issue of global
warming, air travel may in fact be hurt even more than if they take
steps to curb growth worldwide.

In other words, if the planet implemented strict fuel consumption
limits, you might see the barrel of oil come down to $35, but with taxes
cost users $100. But if you don't do any restrictions and let growth
continue, the price of oil might rise to $150 or higher if every chinese
person buys a car in the next 10 years.

So implementing Kyoto-like limits may in fact be the lesser of two evils
for airlines. For oil companies, it is another matter.
.
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

Daniel

2006-07-20 00:14:52 UTC

Post by JF Mezei
Do you really think that carrying football fans from england to
netherlands just so they can attend a football match is worthy of the
CO2 emissions that this activity generates ?

I can think of a number of activities that generate more emissions.
Thing is, a full airplane has better mileage per gallon than a typical
2-person vehicle (be it per fan head or commuter head). Trains aren't
that great either emission-wise unless you power your TGVs or
Shinkansens with nuclear energy. Trains can't be full all the time, not
very flexible.

Post by JF Mezei
This is truly the ultimate in discretionary air travel. Taking a flight
just to watch a sports event. Increase the prices enough, and you lose
all of that business. They'll watch the matches on large screen TVs at home.

One of the key to EasyJet and Ryanair success is to extend the British
city suburbs to where real estate prices make it affordable or
desirable to relocate family. Turning some French town or Spanish
resort into a destination will have an immediate impact on local prices
and activity (schools, shops...). Local officials will fight to get
their Ryanair daily flight to Stansted.

Post by JF Mezei
Southwest and JetBlue would be less affected because their prices are
not ridiculously low and the truly "fly instead of take the subway to
the stadium" type of customers is not a significant portion of their
customer base. But they do seem to have a lot of family travel and this
may be curbed with higher prices.

Agree. It just makes more sens to travel by air in large continental
countries not having the population density and infrastructures there
are in Europe. And that's what statistics have been showing for
decades. But then, LCCs may be the cheapest way to travel in Europe
these days. People aren't that eager to subsidize public land
transportation when having other options, including private vehicles.
US has been there before. Virtually all US towns had a train station.
By 1905 (peak), 50% of all railroad tracks worldwide had been laid down
in the US. Then came Model T and suburbia. Then Interstate Highways.
Then... LCCs for instance.

Post by JF Mezei
Southwest in the USA became succesful because it was possible to operate
at low cost, and the legacy carriers milked customers for everything
they got. But with price of oil going up, even Southwest will
eventually have to raise its fares significantly and no matter how
efficienctly they may be runned, their ticket prices may have to be
raised above levels where americans fly for discretionary travel.

Discretionary travel can be considered an attribute of freedom. It is a
task of governements to facilitate it. So far so good. Future might be
trickier.

Post by JF Mezei
Consider the current scenario where the 2 biggest polluters in the world
(USA and China) don't do much to curb fuel consumption. The price of oil
is skyrocketing. So if they continue to avoid the issue of global
warming, air travel may in fact be hurt even more than if they take
steps to curb growth worldwide.

US was able to establish its republican project on little more than
wind power, biomass energy and animal force. Like others, it
incidentally found the benefits of industrialization and progress on
some reasonable amount of coal. Then it versed into the opportunity of
consumerism provided by cheap energy -oil- and did that faster than
others for some reasons. So for its current status of greatest polluter
which isn't something it deliberately planned for. The capacity of the
US to adapt its lifestyle to the end of cheap energy and climate change
is only a fraction of a much larger problem were 6 billion people rely
on that cheap energy to carry on. Just for feeding, agricultural
mechanization, pesticides, fertilizers, processing, transportation all
use cheap oil. Then, 5 billion people require hope every morning to
improve their condition, and this again would rely on cheap oil. Nobody
knows how this will unfold, but the less stupid thing to do meanwhile
is to engage in preservation policies just to buy some time and figure
it out.

Post by JF Mezei
So implementing Kyoto-like limits may in fact be the lesser of two evils
for airlines. For oil companies, it is another matter.

Policies that promote preservation.
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

Hans-Joachim Zierke

2006-08-09 19:39:00 UTC

Post by Daniel
I can think of a number of activities that generate more emissions.
Thing is, a full airplane has better mileage per gallon than a typical
2-person vehicle (be it per fan head or commuter head).

That's not true in general, and especially untrue for the suggested
route, where the private car would most likely be parked on a rather
fuel efficient ferry for half of the journey. The only way, to get close
to the aircraft's fuel consumption, is parking the car on the HST
Harwich - Hoek van Holland, which tries to overcome water resistance
with 4x GE LM2500.

Regarding mileage per gallon in general, I can offer 2003 figures for
Germany. For the Umweltbundesamt (which you might call EPA), the IFEU
institute in Heidelberg has developed a model, which compares primary
energy at the energy source, with all transmission losses (be it
refinery losses or the energy needed for the excavator in the coal mine).
This model was agreed upon in consultation with car manufacturers,
railroads, airlines, energy industry, and is therefore rather safe to
use.

With the primary energy computed back into liters of gasoline fuel, the
results are, for long distance traffic:
Travel bus 1.3 liter / 100 passenger kilometers
Railroad 2.7 l / 100 pkm
Car (diesel) 6.6 l / 100 pkm
Car (gasoline) 7.5 l / 100 pkm
Airplane 9.5 l / 100 pkm

Please note that these are expressions of primary energy in liters of
gasoline, so the 6.6 l for the diesel car aren't liters of diesel to
put into the tank, but theoretical liters of gasoline - adjusted for
energy content, transport and refinery losses.

Within some other measurement system, this would be
Travel bus 182 passenger miles per gallon (US gallon, not UK)
Railroad 87 pmpg
Car (diesel) 36 pmpg
Car (gasoline) 31 pmpg
Airplane 25 pmpg

When looking at such figures, it's always good to know, what they
measure, and why.
Look at the aircraft figures: In domestic traffic of a rather small
country, these are figures for hops of a few hundred miles in congested
airspace. If you replace this by EU figures instead, the aircraft
numbers would improve.
As well, doing the short hops with turboprops would improve things, but
there isn't any 737-size turboprop.

Figures for buses look very good in Germany, because Germany has almost
no long distance bus lines. The figures are generated by charter
traffic, special events, travel bureau, groups of people hiring them.
This means a great load factor. In a country with long distance bus
lines, the figures won't be the same.

The railroad figures should be far more universal, but won't apply to
the USA, where trains have double the weight per seat, and the last
fuel-efficient train was built in 1957.

Post by Daniel
Trains aren't
that great either emission-wise unless you power your TGVs or
Shinkansens with nuclear energy.

There is no aircraft turbine in production or in sight, which could
remotely match the efficiency and the emission figures of a high-speed
train powered by a modern coal power plant.

Don't make the error of using USA power plant figures. Other countries
don't have a Dirty Air Act plus a Bush administration further softening
it, and thus, power plant emission figures are fundamentally different.

To use a simple example: The Keystone Power Plant in PA, 1.7 GW, emits
about 170000 - 180000 tons of SO2 per year, according to the EPA tables.
The whole country of Germany, 80 million people, power stations,
industry, traffic, and households, emits about 600000 tons per year.

And therefore, using USA emission figures for electric trains in other
countries is a fundamentally flawed approach.

Post by Daniel
Trains can't be full all the time,

That's correct - the above figures are achieved at a load factor of
42%.

Post by Daniel
People aren't that eager to subsidize public land
transportation when having other options, including private vehicles.

The ultimate test for your statement is direct democracy. Switzerland
has the highest investments into railroad infrastructure on the whole
planet, by public vote. (Subsidy for operating trains is indeed low,
though.)

Post by Daniel
US was able to establish its republican project on little more than
wind power, biomass energy and animal force. Like others, it
incidentally found the benefits of industrialization and progress on
some reasonable amount of coal. Then it versed into the opportunity of
consumerism provided by cheap energy -oil- and did that faster than
others for some reasons. So for its current status of greatest polluter
which isn't something it deliberately planned for. The capacity of the
US to adapt its lifestyle to the end of cheap energy and climate change
is only a fraction of a much larger problem were 6 billion people rely
on that cheap energy to carry on. Just for feeding, agricultural
mechanization, pesticides, fertilizers, processing, transportation all
use cheap oil. Then, 5 billion people require hope every morning to
improve their condition, and this again would rely on cheap oil. Nobody
knows how this will unfold, but the less stupid thing to do meanwhile
is to engage in preservation policies just to buy some time and figure
it out.

It's not as bad as you suggest. Every year, the sun delivers far more
energy, than these 6 billion people will ever need, for living a much
better life than today.

The decisive questions are: How fast are we developing the technologies,
which allow efficient conversion of this energy in its various forms?
And are we able, to use fossil fuels efficiently enough in the meantime,
until that task is done?

Not being able to bridge the gap is the possible trap along the way.

Hans-Joachim

--
Due to the lack of abuse handling, postings from the spammer-domain
google.com aren't routed by the local newsserver, and won't arrive here.
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

Daniel

2006-08-11 14:33:58 UTC

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
Regarding mileage per gallon in general, I can offer 2003 figures for
Germany. For the Umweltbundesamt (which you might call EPA), the IFEU
institute in Heidelberg has developed a model, which compares primary
energy at the energy source, with all transmission losses (be it
refinery losses or the energy needed for the excavator in the coal mine).
This model was agreed upon in consultation with car manufacturers,
railroads, airlines, energy industry, and is therefore rather safe to
use.

This instrument may not be fully adequate if the energy input to
produce and maintain the transportation infrastructure and vector are
not factored in. But then, it might get too complex to compute. For
instance, road pavement material is a by-product of other industrial
activities that wouldn't find much other use. Road infrastructures
would be required even if private vehicles were not turned a commodity.
You'd need the actual share of the infrastructure/vector that is
'amortized' (consumed) per each trip to have a clear picture. Also,
transportation facilities are transformational so there's positive
feedback to consider: no cars, no suburban lifestyle with all its
energy-intensive activities. Lacking transportation infrastructures
safeguards low energy-intensive subsistence agriculture and lifestyles,
what our subsidized export-oriented agriculture is otherwise harming
the world over.

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
With the primary energy computed back into liters of gasoline fuel, the
Travel bus 1.3 liter / 100 passenger kilometers
Railroad 2.7 l / 100 pkm
Car (diesel) 6.6 l / 100 pkm
Car (gasoline) 7.5 l / 100 pkm
Airplane 9.5 l / 100 pkm

Leaving aside the mission/load factors, does that figure for airplanes
include all intermodal sections of the trip (going to the airport?).
Likewise, do the car figures include the energy input to produce it,
maintain it, and to build/maintain the pavement surface under tires?
Also knowing how many pax in car helps and that's societal. In
Philippines, you'd often count up to 30 pax on a Jeepney journey
(refurbished Mitsubishi Diesel 4-banger), and 10 pax (!) on tricycle
was my record (Honda 125cm3 4-stroke). Outstanding efficiency then :)

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
As well, doing the short hops with turboprops would improve things, but
there isn't any 737-size turboprop.

In the '50s there were. British had some BAC/Vickers, and the Electra
was also hot then. I think the Breguet Atlantic was also initiated as a
pax carrier. We'd have to get back to this. Some ATR 124 of some sort.

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
The railroad figures should be far more universal, but won't apply to
the USA, where trains have double the weight per seat, and the last
fuel-efficient train was built in 1957.

Amtrack is essentially a tourist attraction, but you've got somewhat
efficient pax trains on the Eastern corridor using Euro-Canadian
technology. The revival of railroads in the US has to do with freight
where they are today way ahead of Europe and its fragmented and
truck-king market. Freight intermodality policies where you load trucks
on trains have failed so far, with the exception of Eurotunnel and the
compulsory Swiss corridors.

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
There is no aircraft turbine in production or in sight, which could
remotely match the efficiency and the emission figures of a high-speed
train powered by a modern coal power plant.

Probably the only such association would be Germany's ICE with thermal
power plants. Using those and French nuclear TGVs, you'll notice they
have decent load factors because of the neat interconnection and steady
service they provide with large urban centers, with relatively short
hops. Even at 42% load factor, you still have good yield because of
pricey tickets. Transposing this model to continental-sized countries
may not work out favorably. Where you have population density, you
still lack the feeding infrastructures there are in Europe - those
excellent regional train networks that serve the major train stations.
You may not secure the investments in infrastructure (see fate of Texas
TGV). Plus on very long distances, fast trains wouldn't be fast enough
to compete with airlines, and efficiency would deteriorate because of
distance.

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
To use a simple example: The Keystone Power Plant in PA, 1.7 GW, emits
about 170000 - 180000 tons of SO2 per year, according to the EPA tables.
The whole country of Germany, 80 million people, power stations,
industry, traffic, and households, emits about 600000 tons per year.

Appalachian coal is badly loaded yes. But Pennsylvania is also home to
TMI. That plant, very similar to all PWRs you'll find in France, has
sealed the fate of nuclear energy in the US. So the public for now
would rather have the SO2 emissions/acid rains than reopen a debate,
which seems will also have to take place in Germany again (Gazprom?).
Energy cost and geopolitical factors will lead the agenda in those
democracies as did in the past.

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
The ultimate test for your statement is direct democracy. Switzerland
has the highest investments into railroad infrastructure on the whole
planet, by public vote. (Subsidy for operating trains is indeed low,
though.)

Swiss have a unique dual election-votation participative system. It
goes with their experience, culture and economic means to support those
choices. You'd probably find a touch of this only in NH/Vermont. They
do tax other competing transportation means, or legislate altogether.
Swiss trucks are narrower than Europe's and they put restrictions on
transits of larger trucks (:-). Gas is highly taxed. The most awesome
public transportation system was the Swiss-Metro carried by EPFL/EPHZ
20 years ago. A vast network of vacuumed underground tunnels linking
all Swiss populations centers, using maglev with linear induction
engine. Pressurized cars would efficiently cruise at 400kph.
Considering their skills in engineering and abilities at digging out
granite, wouldn't be surprised if they revived it. As I remember it
would have put Geneva 20 minutes from Lausanne, and 40 minutes from
Zurich. Kills both cars and planes on intercity hops.

Post by Daniel
Then, 5 billion people require hope every morning to
improve their condition, and this again would rely on cheap oil. Nobody
knows how this will unfold, but the less stupid thing to do meanwhile
is to engage in preservation policies just to buy some time and figure
it out.

It's not as bad as you suggest. Every year, the sun delivers far more
energy, than these 6 billion people will ever need, for living a much
better life than today.

Don't know if that better life would be attractive to many. You need a
lot (most) of that energy to sustain ecosystems and habitats like rain
forests and deserts. Also to support lifestyles that are less
'productive' on arable land but relevant for culture and identity. When
you hike all across forests covering most of New Hampshire, you'll have
to jump over stone walls now and then. You realize then that those are
remnants of a landscape that must have been strikingly similar to
Europe's. People there in the 19th century just moved en-masse to other
areas and to other lives. Perhaps they developed the open field
mechanized Midwest agriculture, went to manufacturing jobs in sprawling
cities or whatever. On the other hand, Europeans and many others will
not give up their low-productivity countryside back to wilderness or to
open field without developing deep cultural (political?) trauma. Humans
cannot run the planet on engineering criteria of productivity without
risking mass production of stereotyped zombies or culturally orphaned
individuals (unstable). That process of acculturation is picking up
speed particularly in Middle-East and Asia now. I thought it was much
more interesting to exchange with Chinese from rural extraction you
meet in factories, still educated, than with the model Singaporean
Chinese that today enjoys the better life. Seem better armed to face
uncertain times in store.

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
The decisive questions are: How fast are we developing the technologies,
which allow efficient conversion of this energy in its various forms?
And are we able, to use fossil fuels efficiently enough in the meantime,
until that task is done?

We'll never beat Mother Nature at that job of converting the sun's
nuclear fusion energy into biomass and then fossil fuel deposits that
we'll go through the last drop in just 2 centuries. As for fission
energy, probably we should do more geothermal before putting up plants.
Reminds me of what you have under some Swiss homes, next to the
individual nuclear shelter: 2 pipes drilled hundreds of feet below and
a pump to cycle water.

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
Not being able to bridge the gap is the possible trap along the way.

Mastering the controlled nuclear fusion and enabling the hydrogen
rather than carbon cycle may lift all remaining limits upon us, and
quickly transform the planet into a spacecraft.
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

Hans-Joachim Zierke

2006-08-13 16:41:59 UTC

Post by Daniel
This instrument may not be fully adequate if the energy input to
produce and maintain the transportation infrastructure and vector are
not factored in.

You are right. If you know of a scientific model, not one out of the
political propaganda sphere - information welcome!

Post by Daniel
Also,
transportation facilities are transformational so there's positive
feedback to consider: no cars, no suburban lifestyle with all its
energy-intensive activities. Lacking transportation infrastructures
safeguards low energy-intensive subsistence agriculture and lifestyles,
what our subsidized export-oriented agriculture is otherwise harming
the world over.

A suburban lifestyle was created without cars. Cars either didn't exist,
or hadn't developed into a useful transportation device. Back then,
suburban lifestyle was not available to the masses. Artists, lower
management, people in that income class could afford it.

When the masses could afford it, car was already the dominant
transportation, and planning was less carefully undertaken as in 1900.
Of course, we are still able to create such suburban settlements, which
do not depend on the car. Today, it would be for everybody, but maybe,
that's the reason for less careful planning. There are some attempts
into this direction, but none matches the quality of a "garden city"
(that's what suburban settlements were called 100 years ago).
Here's a "garden city" of 1905:
Loading Image...

Even today, you can live in this suburb without a car, because that's
what it was planned for (quite compentently).

Post by Daniel
Leaving aside the mission/load factors, does that figure for airplanes
include all intermodal sections of the trip (going to the airport?).

No.

Post by Daniel
Likewise, do the car figures include the energy input to produce it,
maintain it, and to build/maintain the pavement surface under tires?

No.

Post by Daniel
Also knowing how many pax in car helps and that's societal. In
Philippines, you'd often count up to 30 pax on a Jeepney journey
(refurbished Mitsubishi Diesel 4-banger), and 10 pax (!) on tricycle
was my record (Honda 125cm3 4-stroke). Outstanding efficiency then :)

There's not much difference between the USA and Central Europe in this
regard. Overall occupation is somewhere around 1.5, less in commuter
traffic, more in leisure traffic.

The higher consumption of US cars isn't societal, but was created in
Washington. The most important is the "light truck" loophole, which has
been used to turn energy preservation policies into a joke - meanwhile,
almost 50% of USA POV transportation is done with "light trucks".
Congress has chosen to ignore that, and this ignorance has set a major
part of the "societal" difference in fuel consumption.

Another reason is, that the European car fleet uses more diesel cars.
Doing the same was impossible with the quality of diesel fuel sold at
US gas stations. Reason: Until very recently, the EPA has always lost
against oil industry interests.

Post by Daniel
Amtrack is essentially a tourist attraction, but you've got somewhat
efficient pax trains on the Eastern corridor using Euro-Canadian
technology.

That's what I was talking about. In comparison to a normal high-speed
train, those Euro-Canadian technology trains feature double the dead
weight per seat. (They are also double as expensive as a normal
high-speed train.)

The powerheads were built in France, in the same workshops as TGV
powerheads, yes. The workers called them "le cochon". If the customer
orders an absurd device, the manufacturer will deliver an absurd device.

The Acela makes about as much sense as a Boeing 787 built out of steel.
Go to Boeing, order a series of 787 made out of steel, and if there is
enough money to earn, I bet they'll do it. Just like the Alstom workers,
the guys in Seattle might create lots of jokes about that bird, but if
it pays their wages...

A unique feature of the Acela is, that it is a tilting train, but can't
travel through curves any faster than a French TGV, which doesn't tilt.
Reason: Obese.
If you would be allowed to search the Sikorsky / United Aircraft
archives, you should find a fine piece of railroad engineering (yes,
yes, I'm serious): A calculation of the running time, which is
achievable on New York - Boston with tilting train technology. United
Aircraft did that calculation in the 1960s. The Acela will never come
close.

Post by Daniel
The revival of railroads in the US has to do with freight
where they are today way ahead of Europe and its fragmented and
truck-king market.

"Sea-king" market, please. ;-) More than 40% of the intra-EU freight
traffic goes by sea. (Plus 4% on inland waterways.)

BTW: Beware of the traps provided EU and USA statistics. I've written a
web-page about that:
http://zierke.com/web-page/eurostat_numbers

Post by Daniel
Probably the only such association would be Germany's ICE with thermal
power plants.

What about Spain, what about Italy?

Trains in Germany are 24.1% nuclear powered, 11.8% regenerative powered
(wind, hydro), 48.6% is coal. Coal will decline, regenerative rise.

Post by Daniel
Using those and French nuclear TGVs, you'll notice they
have decent load factors because of the neat interconnection and steady
service they provide with large urban centers, with relatively short
hops.

TGVs are operated airline style and have indeed high load factors. ICE
are operated railroad style and have a load factor in the 40s.
Adjusting train service to demand yields a lower equipment utilization.
ICE units are operated 13 - 15 hours per day on average, TGV operate
less hours.

Post by Daniel
Even at 42% load factor, you still have good yield because of
pricey tickets.

Don't get fooled by the list price of tickets: I think that about 15% of
the railroad passengers in Germany pay full fare. Let's assume, that
Southwest would offer a 50% discount pass for several hundred dollars,
how many business travelers would pay full fare? ;-)

The reason, why railroads can operate profitably above the rails with a
load factor of 40%, is the much lower cost per seat (much shorter
stopover or turnaround, less capital costs for the rolling stock, low
energy costs).
Main disadvantage is high labour cost per passenger mile, caused by not
enough speed.

Post by Daniel
Transposing this model to continental-sized countries
may not work out favorably.

Want to go from Lisbon to Helsinki by rail?

The European continent is too big for rail just as well, that's why we
need an intermodal system.

Continental-sized railroad operation has existed in Europe, lots of it,
but these trains have died decades ago. When I was a young boy, there
were the last survivors like Rome - Stockholm and Moskva - Paris, and I
personally used the Hellas-Express from Athens to Dortmund.

But these have all disappeared.

Post by Daniel
Where you have population density, you
still lack the feeding infrastructures there are in Europe - those
excellent regional train networks that serve the major train stations.

That's correct, and US regulations don't allow to set up something
comparable.

Post by Daniel
You may not secure the investments in infrastructure (see fate of Texas
TGV).

At 5 times the cost in comparison to European passenger rail
infrastructure, it's indeed not easy to find the money. I wouldn't want
to invest either.
Plus of course, Texas won't have been allowed to use a normal high-speed
train. Another "le cochon" would have been required, creating an
operating cost catastrophe.

Post by Daniel
Plus on very long distances, fast trains wouldn't be fast enough
to compete with airlines, and efficiency would deteriorate because of
distance.

Trains aren't supposed to compete with airlines on very long distances,
they are supposed to feed them. That's true everywhere. In 5 years, you
can run a high-speed train from Amsterdam to Sevilla, but of course,
nobody is going to do that.
The real problem is, that on the NL side, AMS is nicely integrated. But
on the ES side, Spain will have the finest high-speed railroad network
in future, but there's no really good interface to air.

Post by Daniel
Appalachian coal is badly loaded yes.

German lignite is worse.

Post by Daniel
But Pennsylvania is also home to
TMI. That plant, very similar to all PWRs you'll find in France, has
sealed the fate of nuclear energy in the US. So the public for now
would rather have the SO2 emissions/acid rains than reopen a debate,
which seems will also have to take place in Germany again (Gazprom?).

I don't understand what you mean. Nobody has to accept an acid rain
problem, regardless of power source. It is an issue of regulations,
policies, and electricity price.

The acid rain debate was a debate in the West Germany of the 1970s. It
ended in 1982, when the Bundestag passed the
"Großfeuerungsanlagenverordnung" ("big firing device regulation", or
something like that).

For a posting in another newsgroup, I have made a non-scientific table
showing yearly SO2 emissions.

Non-scientific, because USA figures are for Clean Air Act covered
emissions, Germany figures for all energy related emissions (power
stations, industry, household, traffic), and West Germany figures for
power stations and district heating.

With all shortcomings, it shows the different results of different
policies well enough. Don't try to use it for more than that. You have
been warned... ;-)

SO2 in non-metric tons, year:

USA Germany West Germany

1980 17 300 000 ~2 100 000
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985 16 100 000 ~1 650 000
1986 ~1 550 000
1987 ~1 250 000
1988 ~600 000
1989 ~400 000
1990 15 700 000 5 808 000
1991 4 340 000
1992 3 584 000
1993 3 189 000
1994 2 670 000
1995 11 900 000 2 072 000
1996 12 500 000 1 416 000
1997 13 000 000 1 086 000
1998 13 100 000 861 000
1999 12 500 000 751 000
2000 11 200 000 642 000
2001 10 600 000 650 000
2002 10 200 000 615 000
2003 619 000

As you can see, coal power plants don't have an acid rain problem, as
soon as the technology of the late 1980s is in universal use. Coal power
plants have had an NOx problem, which was mostly solved in the 1990s,
and they still have a mercury problem, which EU regulations require
to solve until autumn 2007.

The problem of coal is CO2, nothing else.

Post by Daniel
Swiss trucks are narrower than Europe's and they put restrictions on
transits of larger trucks (:-).

That's how it used to be, in the old days.

Then the EU blackmailed Switzerland into accepting EU size trucks, with
some kind of "you want customs easements for our nice big market, you
will accept our trucks". It was a little more complicated, but you get
the idea.
The bills for road widening and strengthening are high, but will be paid
from road pricing for trucks. The treaty between the EU and Switzerland
allows higher road pricing, as soon as enough intermodal capacity is in
place. When both the new Lötschberg and the new Gotthard railroad
tunnels are in operation, Switzerland is allowed to ask for rather high
road prices for trucks.

Post by Daniel
Gas is highly taxed. The most awesome
public transportation system was the Swiss-Metro carried by EPFL/EPHZ
20 years ago. A vast network of vacuumed underground tunnels linking
all Swiss populations centers, using maglev with linear induction
engine. Pressurized cars would efficiently cruise at 400kph.
Considering their skills in engineering and abilities at digging out
granite, wouldn't be surprised if they revived it.

That suggestion is dead. And your text shows unfamiliarity with
Swiss-style traffic planning. You didn't mention "0:00", "0:30", "0:15"
once. ;-)

Post by Daniel
We'll never beat Mother Nature at that job of converting the sun's
nuclear fusion energy into biomass and then fossil fuel deposits that
we'll go through the last drop in just 2 centuries.

I don't think that we should beat Mother Nature at the job of converting
the sun's nuclear fusion energy into biomass. Mother Nature is damn good
at that, because there was a lot of time available to get good at it. We
might add a little selection and manipulation.

The interesting part is the conversion into non-fossil fuel. Current
procedures for "biofuels" are nonsense, they use only a small percentage
of the energy stored in the biomass. But in the lab, there are already
processes, which use the whole plant. Question is, how well they will
scale up to industry size, and wether there are even better ideas than
the current ones.

Post by Daniel
As for fission
energy, probably we should do more geothermal before putting up plants.

For the next 30 years, wind will be the most relevant form of the sun's
energy. In Germany, wind has already passed hydro in energy production
per year. There are major challenges, which need further progress in
high-strength steels and carbon-fiber airfoils, but I say that in 5 or
10 years, we're there.
As well, 90% of household heating and warm water needs are already in
reach of solar collectors. Electricity production from the sun is still
inefficient, but water heating is good enough already. Okay - not in
Alaska. ;-)

Post by Daniel
Mastering the controlled nuclear fusion

A promising technology when I was a boy, and a promising technology
today, 40 years later.

Post by Daniel
and enabling the hydrogen
rather than carbon cycle may lift all remaining limits upon us, and
quickly transform the planet into a spacecraft.

Hydrogen is nothing but a storage technology. It might help in the
distribution cycle, perhaps, maybe.

But in the next decades, its main function is that of a political
vehicle: Avoiding possible progress with the help of a vague promise
for a distant future.

Hans-Joachim

JF Mezei

2006-08-13 17:50:48 UTC

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
That's what I was talking about. In comparison to a normal high-speed
train, those Euro-Canadian technology trains feature double the dead
weight per seat. (They are also double as expensive as a normal
high-speed train.)

The Acellas may have been built by Bombardier, but they are licenced
technology from France (Alsthom). It would be fairer to call it
Euro-American since Amtrak is the one who dictated the use of various
things (such as the failing computer controlled toilet doors).

In terms of the weight: When Bombardier built its first modern north
american intercity train in the late 1970s (the LRC), it turned out that
it was too light for the CN tracks and its wheels were built with
slighly greater "give" between the 2 tracks to allow it to take curves
and manage track imperfections at high speeds. This "give", combined
with the light weight of locomotives ended up damaging the CN tracks
because of wobbling/jumping at high speeds so CN restricted the LRCs to
conventional speeds equivalent to what steam engines used to do in the 1950s.

When Amtrak ordered some LRCs it made matters worse by specifying some
incompatible electric power units from a different manufacturer and
those ended up never working reliably, and Amtrak returned the trains
not long after it got them.

It appears that Bombardier made the same mistake in allowing Amtrak to
dictate the contents of the Acella instead of sticking to the original
designs from Alsthom.

In fairness though, there are strit standards on how a coach must
survive a head to head impact, and this requires heavy structural
elements. Not sure if this is also in force for europe. This may partly
explain the heavier weight. But I think the biggest reason is that the
track quality in north american is by far inferior to that in europe,
even on the Boston/Washington Corridor.

Imagine if Boeing were forced to build aircraft that would widthstand a
crash.

Now, in terms of Amtrak "wrecking" the trains, compare this to
Boeing/Airbus who sell a "ready made" product to airlines that has been
approved by the FAA and others, and where the airline has only a fixed
set of options for engines and cockpit instruments. And for in interior,
there would also be some standards and I don't think they get to choose
the manufacturer of the toilets, they get to choose where to put the
toilet blocks that Boeing has designed/approved.

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
The Acela makes about as much sense as a Boeing 787 built out of steel.

If you take away the Amtrak specificed modifications, the train is not
that stupid. The TGV trainsets are not that special. They use technology
that has been used before. What is special and what allows the high
speed are the tracks and the power lines as well as pantographs. A lot
of science has gone into that. (the ability to transfer large amounts of
power through the pantographs despite them creating a wave as they move,
pushing the overhead wires "up".)

TGVs have 2 sets of pantographs and power converters: one set for the
TGV lines, and one set for conventional european rail. (eurostar have a
3set for use in england with ground level power pickup).

The problem with Acella is that it is using conventional overhead lines
because the Washington-New York line is shared with older trains, as
well as commuter trains.

Acella is a compromise made to run on conventional tracks. Just like the
LRC was a compromise to run on conventional tracks.

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
A unique feature of the Acela is, that it is a tilting train, but can't
travel through curves any faster than a French TGV, which doesn't tilt.
Reason: Obese.

Actually, the TGV does tilt. But it is not an active tilting mechanism.
It is an articulation based on the fact that 2 cars share the same
bogie. The cars are actually hinged from the top and mechanisms at the
bottom control how it hinges.

However, the real reason the TGV goes faster in curves isn't the titling
mechanism, it is the tracks. TGV lines are built to TGV specifications.
When you look at the work being put to bring a TGV standards line to
London, you see how much effort and dedication is required. Amtrak is
basically stuck with its own right of way between Boston and Washington
and did not have the money nor government (municipal, state , federal)
commitments to transform this railbed into a true high speed one. So you
have a compromise that is only marginally faster than previous
generation metroliners.

In fairness, when you consider population density in the "corridor" and
the fact that there are developments alongside almost the whole length,
it becomes much harder to move the line to make it faster, compared to
TGV lines in europe where they just have to displace cows on a field.

When SNCF built the TGV line to Marseilles, they built huge
bridges/viaducts over valleys. But this was probably easier than
expropriating people in/around towns. (And in aviation , look at the
problems of airport expansion versus local residents who fight tooth and
nail against such expansion).

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
If you would be allowed to search the Sikorsky / United Aircraft
archives, you should find a fine piece of railroad engineering
... A calculation of the running time, which is
achievable on New York - Boston with tilting train technology. United
Aircraft did that calculation in the 1960s. The Acela will never come
close.

United Aircraft was the main builder on the late 1960s Turbo Trains,
used by CN (and VIA) until the mid 1980s in Canada (dumped by US
railroads earlier than that). It was turbine driven like a jet engine.
It was sleek and in many ways similar to TGVs (shared bogies between
cars for instance). And those calculations were similar to what
Bombardier had claimed for its LRC. But in the end, bad track conditions
were the limiting factor.

The problem with the Turbo Trains is that railway maintenance crews had
been trained on how to fix steam engines and more recent diesel ones and
didn't have a clue on how to maintain aircraft style turbine engines.

And when Bombardier built its LRC, one of the aspects it wanted was
commonality with older train technology for maintenance purposes. So
instead of using electronics for the banking system controls, it used
good old fashioned unreliable mechanical relays. Instead of aircraft
style turbines, it ised goold old fashioned diesel electric systems.

Those efforts ended up hurting the LRC because despite them the train
was still different enough that crews coudln't maintain it well, and
also, most systems were below cars and VIA ended up having to build
special maintainance facilities where crews could work from under the
train. Once VIA agreed that the trains needed their own maintenance
crews/facilities, it gave gfreen light to Bombardier to start using
electronics instead of mechanical relays etc for the second generation
of LRC trains.

With this in mind, I am looking forward to see how airlines integrate
the 787 into their maintenance facilities because the 787 will be like a
totally new thing for maintenance crews at airlines. Not just the carbon
fibre portion, but also all those new systems that replace bleed-air
based conventional ones.

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
Trains aren't supposed to compete with airlines on very long distances,
they are supposed to feed them.

Long distance trains are a tourism industry, but also provide local
transportation between rural areas. For instance, when Canada still had
transcontinentail trains, there would be people boarding in Sudbury to
go to White River with their canoes, and foreign tourists boarding in
Halifax to go all the way to Vancouver via Montreal and Ottawa.

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
place. When both the new Lötschberg and the new Gotthard railroad
tunnels are in operation, Switzerland is allowed to ask for rather high
road prices for trucks.

These tunnels (and a few others) will allow essentially level carruage
of freight between Germany and Italy, greatly reducing the
haulage/energy costs required to move the goods up/down long inclines.
It will also greatly shorten passenger train journey times.

While at the moment, many city pairs may appear to be too far from each
other for train to compete, it is not unthinkable that air travel will
be made so difficult and time consuming at airports that a significant
number of city pairs will start to see the train (and even buses) as a
very viable transport platform.

In the end, trains and buses may start to get back the passengers that
had switched to air for flights of less than 2 hours.

Post by Daniel
Mastering the controlled nuclear fusion

A promising technology when I was a boy, and a promising technology
today, 40 years later.

When fusion becomes reality, it may result in massive changes to
industries. With massive amounts of electricity and heat/steam
available, even cars will quickly switch to recheargeable technology
(either batteries or hydrogen/oxygen).

But until electricity becomes "plentiful", you'll probably see
incremental additiosn via unconventional sources such as wind, solar,
and more importantly, conservation. (If existing users start saving 10%
of their energy (electric, fuel), it means that you can grow by 10% and
not require additional electric generation planmts or more
refineries/crude oil supplies).

However, as long as aviation is limited by fossil fuels, it will be at
the whim of oil supplies, as well as environmental regulations on emissions.
.
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

Tom Sanderson

2006-08-15 17:20:53 UTC

Post by JF Mezei
Imagine if Boeing were forced to build aircraft that would widthstand a
crash.

They do. There is a long laundry list of load cases and design criteria
associated with crashing that an aircraft has to withstand. In many cases
(especially inside the passenger cabin) these are the limiting load cases.

Post by JF Mezei
Now, in terms of Amtrak "wrecking" the trains, compare this to
Boeing/Airbus who sell a "ready made" product to airlines that has been
approved by the FAA and others, and where the airline has only a fixed
set of options for engines and cockpit instruments.

There are *way* more options than this. I just took a look at the current
737 option sheet...there are ~3000 options on it.

Post by JF Mezei
And for in interior, there would also be some standards and I don't think
they get to choose
the manufacturer of the toilets, they get to choose where to put the
toilet blocks that Boeing has designed/approved.

Boeing doesn't design the interior, other than the overhead bins and
sidewalls. The airline picks the seats, lavatories, galleys, carpet, IFE,
etc. Naturally, whatever they install has to be certified and approved, but
it doesn't have to be designed or approved by Boeing.

Post by JF Mezei
With this in mind, I am looking forward to see how airlines integrate
the 787 into their maintenance facilities because the 787 will be like a
totally new thing for maintenance crews at airlines. Not just the carbon
fibre portion, but also all those new systems that replace bleed-air
based conventional ones.

Remove and replace isn't that difficult a maintenance procedure, no matter
what the component is. There are relatively few systems components that are
designed to be repaired on the airplane. The electric air compressor will
be new to them, but I think that's about it.

Carbon fiber isn't at all new to airline maintenance personnel. It's in
some new places, but the repair techniques and tools have been around for a
long time.

Tom.
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

Hans-Joachim Zierke

2006-08-17 07:24:15 UTC

Post by JF Mezei
The Acellas may have been built by Bombardier, but they are licenced
technology from France (Alsthom).

For the powerheads, you are right, but Alstom did not have any tilting
cars back then (later, they bought Fiat Ferroviaria to solve that). The
tilting cars of the Acela are modern versions of the Canadian LRC.

Post by JF Mezei
When Bombardier built its first modern north
american intercity train in the late 1970s (the LRC), it turned out that
it was too light for the CN tracks

As long as the car body does not start to oscillate, there is no way to
build a railroad car too light. Light cars need a completely different
suspension, and technically, they are operating in a different stability
regime.
After the first 200 km/h run in 1903, we've needed 60 years to get it
right.

Post by JF Mezei
In fairness though, there are strit standards on how a coach must
survive a head to head impact, and this requires heavy structural
elements. Not sure if this is also in force for europe.

Of course not. It would mean to close down our railroad network. Nobody
can operate a fast railroad network with this ruleset.

In addition, just buying a fuel efficient car yields the same
consumption figures as an FRA-compliant train, making the whole effort
of setting up public transport quite useless.

But I shouldn't complain: An administration trying to revoke those pesky
laws of Isaac Newton gets all my points for entertainment value.

Post by JF Mezei
This may partly
explain the heavier weight.

About 90% of it, yes.

Post by JF Mezei
But I think the biggest reason is that the
track quality in north american is by far inferior to that in europe,
even on the Boston/Washington Corridor.

Amtrak has bought a complete ballast management, a track recording, and
a spot maintenance system from Plasser & Theurer in Austria, predated by
a complete precision survey of the NEC. The Amtrak engineers will be
able, to tell you about the current deviation in millimeters of any point
of their NEC track, plus give you the history of deviations.

Basically, they went shopping for the best solution and found it. Not
all of the NECIP money has been wasted.

Post by JF Mezei
Imagine if Boeing were forced to build aircraft that would widthstand a
crash.

I'm sure they have to, and there's nothing bad about it.

Basically, accidents happen as "number of conflicts x accident
probability". A safety regime tries to reduce the accident probability,
and does so especially in areas with a high number of conflicts. At the
end of the day, you'll look out for those accidents, for which you
either couldn't reduce the probability enough at acceptable cost, or
which withstand these efforts by their nature. Then you'll identify
those with the highest probability, and then write down passive safety
rules for catching a well-defined set of accidents.

For aircraft, this might be runway overshooting and emergency landing,
while nobody tries to control a head-on crash of two planes at 40000
feet by fuselage strength.

For trains, these are shunting and grade crossing accidents, while
nobody tries to control a head-on crash of two 300 km/h trains by
car strength. At least, nobody outside of Washington.

Post by JF Mezei
If you take away the Amtrak specificed modifications, the train is not
that stupid.

If I take away the Amtrak specified modifications, it is one of the
absurdest contraptions in the history of railroads.

By European interoperability rules, this contraption won't be allowed
to operate at high speed, simply because the inflicted track maintenance
costs are too high.

Several European railroads don't have to pay for the initial
infrastructure building cost, but have to earn all operating and
instructure maintenance costs. Such a railroad won't accept the Acela
units as a gift.

Post by JF Mezei
The TGV trainsets are not that special. They use technology
that has been used before.

The TGV trainsets are based on one of the most remarkable engineering
achievements in the history of mankind, 25 years of research. The
technical difference is about as big as between a DC-3 and a Concorde.

When the SNCF ran for record in 1955
Loading Image...

the track has looked like this after one run:
Loading Image...

Back then, the conclusion in Germany has been, that steel wheels on
steel rails would never run much faster than 200 km/h. That's the
reason, why Germany started the Transrapid project back then. TGV speeds
were seen as technically impossible with steel on steel, and this
was the consent of most railroad engineers back then.

The SNCF has proven, that all those little things like suspension,
damping, wheel conicity, bogie turning resistance, axle loading and and
and are able to create something completely new.

Post by JF Mezei
TGVs have 2 sets of pantographs and power converters: one set for the
TGV lines, and one set for conventional european rail.

The French network has 1500 V DC lines, and 25 kV AC lines. On this map,
Loading Image...

you can see the 1500 V lines in brown, and 25 kV in blue. You might
notice, that there is much more 25 kV electrification than just the TGV
lines.
You are right, that TGV are outfitted for both, but so are French locos.

Post by JF Mezei
The problem with Acella is that it is using conventional overhead lines
because the Washington-New York line is shared with older trains, as
well as commuter trains.

For operating high-speed trains, you need high-speed catenary, but this
is fully backwards compatible.
In Vaihingen (Enz), which is located on a German 280 km/h line, you
might even spot trams under those wires. There is lots of freight on
German high-speed lines, and some of these freight locos still sport
their original 1960s pantograph.

Post by JF Mezei
Acella is a compromise made to run on conventional tracks.

With the exception of Japan and its special gauge issues, all high-speed
trains run on conventional tracks. German high-speed trains spend more
kilometers on the old network than on high-speed lines.

Post by JF Mezei
Actually, the TGV does tilt. But it is not an active tilting mechanism.
It is an articulation based on the fact that 2 cars share the same
bogie. The cars are actually hinged from the top

You don't talk about the TGV, but about the Spanish Talgo:
http://zierke.com/shasta_route/picpages/281-talgo_200.html

TGV don't tilt, never did, with the exception of one unsuccessful
prototype. This prototype has had its tilting mechanism sitting low:
Loading Image...

Post by JF Mezei
However, the real reason the TGV goes faster in curves isn't the titling
mechanism, it is the tracks. TGV lines are built to TGV specifications.

Tilting trains are operated at /much/ higher curve speeds than TGV or
the Acela, and the typical tilting train route looks like this:
Loading Image...

Post by JF Mezei
In fairness, when you consider population density in the "corridor" and
the fact that there are developments alongside almost the whole length,
it becomes much harder to move the line to make it faster, compared to
TGV lines in europe where they just have to displace cows on a field.

Nobody in this discussion has voiced the opinion, that the NEC could be
operated at the average speed of a newbuilt high-speed line. Nobody
expects this, and thus, it would be nice, to avoid strawman arguments.

The facts are, that active tilting trains are commonly operated at
12 inches of cant deficiency
http://zierke.com/shasta_route/sidenotes/cant-def.html
and the Acela will never exceed 7 inches due to its technical
shortcomings.

If my memory does not betray me, the calculation of the United Aircraft
engineers, in the 1960s, was based on the assumption of 11 inches.

Post by JF Mezei
These tunnels (and a few others) will allow essentially level carruage
of freight between Germany and Italy, greatly reducing the
haulage/energy costs required to move the goods up/down long inclines.
It will also greatly shorten passenger train journey times.

Yep. By about 1 hour. Removes Zürich - Milano from the air, on one hand.
On the other hand, it gets possible, that an US carrier could offer the
whole east of Switzerland with flights into Milano.

Post by JF Mezei
While at the moment, many city pairs may appear to be too far from each
other for train to compete, it is not unthinkable that air travel will
be made so difficult and time consuming at airports that a significant
number of city pairs will start to see the train (and even buses) as a
very viable transport platform.
In the end, trains and buses may start to get back the passengers that
had switched to air for flights of less than 2 hours.

Be realistic. In 2 months, we are back to "normal". And nobody can base
a traffic concept on current news reports.

Of course, all the new high-speed lines in Europe redistribute shorter
distance traffic to rail. But there are more gains on the long distances
as there are losses on the short distances.

Post by JF Mezei
However, as long as aviation is limited by fossil fuels, it will be at
the whim of oil supplies, as well as environmental regulations on emissions.

That's unavoidable. Regarding emissions, turbines used to be much better
than diesel engines. That's no longer true, and will of course raise
requests for faster progress.

Hans-Joachim

JF Mezei

2006-08-17 19:06:56 UTC

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
As long as the car body does not start to oscillate, there is no way to
build a railroad car too light. Light cars need a completely different
suspension, and technically, they are operating in a different stability
regime.

This was about the LRC locomotimes not being heavy enough. CN complained
to VIA about damage to its tracks because of the way the LRC bogies
"danced" around or something to that effect. Remember that the CN tracks
are rather bumpy, and not fully "welded rail". (maybe by now it is).

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
Amtrak has bought a complete ballast management, a track recording, and
a spot maintenance system from Plasser & Theurer in Austria,

This prevents derailments. But it doesn't make your right of way
magically capable of 500km/h. And once you have trustable tracks,
whether it is Acella or Metroliner or conventional trains, all of them
can be told they can go faster.

Post by JF Mezei
Imagine if Boeing were forced to build aircraft that would widthstand a
crash.

I'm sure they have to, and there's nothing bad about it.

An aircraft does not have to widthstand a crash or head on collision.
Trains in north america must. While aircraft manufacturers bend their
wings until they break, train makers have to generate a head on
collision to prove that the structure of passenger cars will not result
in the car being crumpled like you do when you step on a beer can.

If Boeing had to build aircraft to that standard, you could forget
modern composites, and you'd need 12 engines on a 747 just to lift it.
For trains however, once you have accelerated, the weight of each car
isn't as big a concern.

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
By European interoperability rules, this contraption won't be allowed
to operate at high speed, simply because the inflicted track maintenance
costs are too high.

And by north american standards, this train is also not allowed to go at
true high speeds. Acella is a compromise between a TGV and a north
american train. The unfortunate thing is that if americans see Acella as
what high speed trains are all about, they will not support more high
speed trains because they do not see what the fuss is all about. So
this makes it that much harder for politicians to justify/support the
buildup of any more fast trains in the USA.

Note that, like Metroliners before it, the Acella brings convenience and
comfort to passengers and once the train has been debugged and operates
reliably, it will be seen just like a new version of the Metroliners.
Not a revolution, just an evolution.

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
The TGV trainsets are based on one of the most remarkable engineering
achievements in the history of mankind, 25 years of research. The
technical difference is about as big as between a DC-3 and a Concorde.

The TGV trainsets themselves are nothing revoltionary. Much of the
technology in the actual cars had been developped for previous
generation of fast trains in france. In fact, the very first TGV
trainset was turbine/fuel powered. The big advance was the power
transmission/pickup technology which finally allowed enough electrical
power to be transfered from overhead lines to the train at high speed.

Post by JF Mezei
Acella is a compromise made to run on conventional tracks.

With the exception of Japan and its special gauge issues, all high-speed
trains run on conventional tracks.

But the TGV needs its special tracks and overhead lines to go at high
speed. And while the voltage may be compatible, those lines are quite
special with very precise tensioning and "suspension" that prevent the
wave generated by the passing pantograph pushing the line "up" from
following the train (at which point, whenever the pantograph travels
under a section of line that is "high" in the wave, it loses contact and
thus ability to transfer large amounts of power).

The tracks may be at standard gauge, but they are built to very exacting
standards, and have switches built for high speed trains. So the
infrastructure may look conventional, but it is not, and it is what
makes true high speed trains possible.

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
TGV don't tilt, never did, with the exception of one unsuccessful

I will have to check again. I had seen shematic diagrams showing how the
LRC passentger cars didn't actually rest on the bogies were were
suspended on a pendulum and sideways movement at the bottom controlled
by the angle of the articulation between the 2 cars. Maybe it was just
some prototype.

But i agree that it does not have an active tilting mechanism.

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
Be realistic. In 2 months, we are back to "normal". And nobody can base
a traffic concept on current news reports.

When you look at the degradation of security since the 1950s, and its
acceleration since 9-11, there may be the appearance of "back to normal"
soon, but there will be lefover restrictions that may stay on forever,
and with every incident, it adds a few more permanent restrictions.
Conside it took only one person to allegedly have a bomb in his shoe to
cause security to check shoes from time to time. And is still happening.

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
Of course, all the new high-speed lines in Europe redistribute shorter
distance traffic to rail. But there are more gains on the long distances
as there are losses on the short distances.

And this may have some very interesting impact on airline route
networks. If local travel is done by train, then airlines will be left
with long hauls, and this may in fact strenghten the large hub airports
to which trains will feed. In the USA, the lack of ground transportation
options would retain regional air service and less likely to cause a
re-inforcement of large airports as hubs for long hauls.
.
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

Daniel

2006-08-14 21:52:20 UTC

Post by Daniel
This instrument may not be fully adequate if the energy input to
produce and maintain the transportation infrastructure and vector are
not factored in.

You are right. If you know of a scientific model, not one out of the
political propaganda sphere - information welcome!

Let's see if we could all contribute our two cents to this. Preferably
based on pragmatic observations rather than abstract constructs.
Disclaimer: perceived provocations, omissions, mistakes are only
calling for contradiction, no offense intended :))

Our methodology today would be to use the Chinese benchmark to evaluate
energy content in a product.

Postulate would be production cost of any MP item would have two
prominent components being (1) conversion cost, (2) materials costs. To
simplify, we'll leave aside (3) non-recurring expenses amortization
such as R&D - partly subsidized - and factory tooling, (4) cost of
capital (our last defense lines along with marketing and IP).

Current practice tells you that on a highly competitive demand-driven
market where you'd do open RFPs (the current goal), conversion cost
almost equals the labor cost. That's unfortunately what you have in the
CE business today for instance, using contract manufacturing in China.
Probably also what you had at Alsthom's shipbuilding operations in the
recent years before it got sold-out, and why it was so relevant to
import low-cost workers from the sub-continent to do some of the job in
Saint-Nazaire.

Labor cost now, and I am sorry, is paced (/will be) by the Chinese
workforce. And those can safely be asserted to be 2 Yuan (USD 0.30) per
hour for unskilled factory labor, 10 Yuan (USD 1.5) per hour for
experienced floor technicians, 40 Yuan (USD 6) per hour for a very
decent engineer. You heard probably that they are developing
transportation equipment industries with technology transfers from
Airbus and Alsthom to name just two.

When compared to materials costs (BOM cost), those labor costs amount
to peanuts and are negligible in fact. That's what strikes you when you
work those manufacturing RFPs by the book today on a Wall
Street-darling fabless model. Of course, a PC is not an airplane... A
PC has much more cumulative technological content and is less
labor-intensive to make!

Then there's the sourcing aspect. MD80s made in China had their parts
sourced in the US. They were not competitive, which tells you that the
inefficiencies amounted at least to the Long Beach labor input (!). On
A320, they'll get some of the production as opposed to only pure
assembly. So economics will work better, no worries.

If you don't use too much titanium or similar and have hedged - or
stocked - other rare raw materials to dampen demand-induced sudden
fevers, you would draw the conclusion that energy cost makes most of
the materials costs, since the labor component for producing raw
materials, mostly in the developing world, would also be similarly low.

In fact, there is a school of thought that would have you believe this
and am tempted by it. There's a BigMac (!) index used to measure parity
of purchasing power, since a BigMac is almost only its energy price to
produce, and that price is universal in dollars.

The requirement for our Chinese benchmark to work is to move from a
Chinese VW Golf assembled from imported parts under JV, which was
outrageously expensive, to the locally designed, produced and sourced
Cherry which has all labor being local. You may then disregard all
labor from that product as insignificant and consider as a gross
approximation you're looking at USD 3,000 in materials costs, or USD
3,000 worth of oil, from a USD 5,000 street price.

Meaning a basic German-built VW Polo which is similar to a Cherry at
three times the street price has an 'objective' materials cost of
roughly USD 3,000 exclusive of all cumulative labor, and would be that
much in energy overhead (or 100bbl oil at USD 30/bbl to produce).

This is not marginal since energy in 100bbl would power that Polo
vehicle for more than its Swedish bearings would withstand, so you'd
have to divide by 2 or 3 the actual mileage advertized (which should be
around 55 miles per gallon, so down now to say 25 miles per gallon).

By such measure, producing a 787 would use in the order of 1M bbl
(gross estimate), to amortize over its 20-year lifetime. It would go
through that million barrel in only about 3 years, which makes the oil
input for its production marginal.

OK - The only acquired certainty from this reasoning is that all future
perspectives to support middle class incomes based on industrial jobs
(both there and in the 'West') are compromised under current
conditions.

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
A suburban lifestyle was created without cars. Cars either didn't exist,
or hadn't developed into a useful transportation device. Back then,
suburban lifestyle was not available to the masses. Artists, lower
management, people in that income class could afford it.

Yes, with trains in the late 19th century. Those initial railroad lines
were very short - and exclusive.

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
When the masses could afford it, car was already the dominant
transportation, and planning was less carefully undertaken as in 1900.
Of course, we are still able to create such suburban settlements, which
do not depend on the car. Today, it would be for everybody, but maybe,
that's the reason for less careful planning. There are some attempts
into this direction, but none matches the quality of a "garden city"
(that's what suburban settlements were called 100 years ago).

Garden Cities were essentially a late 19th century European utopia
prior to automobiles. Another interesting utopia of those times was
naturalism ;)

Significant was the Rhenan paternalistic commitment to the workforce,
producing those neighborhoods for blue-collar families, well planned
and implemented in Germany, but not only there. Europe also produced
interesting high-density urban family habitats prior to cars. Dutch
proved you could produce quality at densities of 7 units per acre
(70/Hectare). HBMs that surround Paris are from the 20s/30s and
certainly one of the most interesting formulas for keeping modest
families within city limits (built on former fortifications), within
acceptable norms - and without an automobile.

In the US, you went to K&B cottages (now called 'ranches') early on, as
depicted in the 'Modern Times' movie. Post WWII it became the norm and
US cities suffered as a result.

Post WWII and its acute housing shortage in Europe marked a decline in
quality with most collective housing projects, which are now
disconnected from city centers and turned into ghettos. In the past 10
years, LCCs have enabled another cross-border cottage rush on a scale
never seen before, where you have urban folks living in rural settings.
Or from social stratification to atomization (and segregation also).
Something was lost at some point in Europe. I think Hong Kong provides
a good model today. You really don't need a car there and they handle
density well, preserving lots of that small territory's surface for
recreational activities.

But they didn't require the special tracks having dropped the 'T' from
'TGV'. The upcoming Eastern TGV line from Paris to the Sarre carries a
EUR 10bn price tag on similar distance. And most land it will eat away
is inexpensive rural land.

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
A unique feature of the Acela is, that it is a tilting train, but can't
travel through curves any faster than a French TGV, which doesn't tilt.
Reason: Obese.

Assume American tilting requirement was just for comfort and not for
performance. True original Pendolino tilts and was designed to go fast
in curves because the tracks would have been modified to support V^2/R.
TGV is no faster than a regular train on those sections that are not
purpose-built for speed. As a matter of fact, you'd rather want travel
on a spacious Corail with platforms you can load your bike on (perfect
intermodality on French holidays), than be packed inside a TGV when
speed is track-limited at 140kph on most of the journey, which does
happen a lot especially in the South Western direction.

Post by Daniel
Probably the only such association would be Germany's ICE with thermal
power plants.

What about Spain, what about Italy?

You're right. Spain has moved from a clean sheet to the TGV regimen
with probably much lower nuclear contribution also. It should rock
there because of the perfect distribution of population centers
(regardless of the Costas). Which Italy? Torino/Milano are to be
connected to the TGV network by record-breaking tunnel and contributing
even more to the CDG traffic.

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
Trains in Germany are 24.1% nuclear powered, 11.8% regenerative powered
(wind, hydro), 48.6% is coal. Coal will decline, regenerative rise.

Will nuclear's share decline and what's going to replace that? What's
the status of gas cogeneration in Germany?

Post by Daniel
Transposing this model to continental-sized countries
may not work out favorably.

Want to go from Lisbon to Helsinki by rail?

Bits and pieces to connect by air. The Loess plain from Atlantic to
Silesia probably is home to most. Well, there's England and the Po
valley also (connected by fast rail with Eurotunnel and upcoming
Torino/Grenoble tunnel)... Things might change with Eurotunnel since it
is essentially bankrupt. If you'd want to make all scores even between
already spoliated small shareholders and the big banks, you'd
nationalize it and add it to the public infrastructure, relaxing
restrictions.

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
The real problem is, that on the NL side, AMS is nicely integrated. But
on the ES side, Spain will have the finest high-speed railroad network
in future, but there's no really good interface to air.

Spain is shooting for one of the top-three European hubs in Madrid.
You'll have the newest TGV network covering all Spain. It's also the
hottest economy in Europe and an ideal gateway to both Americas.

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
The problem of coal is CO2, nothing else.

Now I'm sure you can't work around that C problem as easily as you did
the with the S and the N :)
Still good to see that SO2 is one area where the US actually manages to
reduce rather than increase emissions. What Germany achieved would be
the target, policies can change.

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
That's how it used to be, in the old days.
Then the EU blackmailed Switzerland into accepting EU size trucks, with
some kind of "you want customs easements for our nice big market, you
will accept our trucks". It was a little more complicated, but you get
the idea.

I'm disappointed with the Swiss, thought they would have retaliated
against Europe with a Gruyere embargo, even lake blockades. Now that's
the attitude, throwing Gouda cheese crates overboard in the Geneva
harbor just to start it all.

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
That suggestion is dead. And your text shows unfamiliarity with
Swiss-style traffic planning. You didn't mention "0:00", "0:30", "0:15"
once. ;-)

My wristwatch wasn't Swiss, used to set it on time according to passing
trains :)

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
Hydrogen is nothing but a storage technology. It might help in the
distribution cycle, perhaps, maybe.

That's what hydrocarbons are from a perspective of using them as fuels.
You'd also have a deficit if you had to start your fuel cycle from
carbon dioxide like natural processes. And it's easier to start from
water. Of course, production and storage are issues, but the exothermal
down slope has superior energy density, with either mechanical or an
electrical options.

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
But in the next decades, its main function is that of a political
vehicle: Avoiding possible progress with the help of a vague promise
for a distant future.

Generally agree but who knows? It's another EUR 10bn bet just to
mention ITER. Rickover was given a few years only to master fission
energy for USN, which he achieved by '54 in time for Nautilus. This
time around, under better auspices, and international cooperation
helping...
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

Hans-Joachim Zierke

2006-08-16 02:02:25 UTC

Post by Daniel
Let's see if we could all contribute our two cents to this.

I know that there has been an INFRAS study in 1995, which estimated
the non-renewable energy consumption for
manufacture/maintenance/recycling of cars to be 15% of their total
consumption, while the share was supposed to be 1.3% for an ICE train.

But this study has had methodological shortcomings, and I remember, that
the Umweltbundesamt (=EPA) ordered a study "Lebensweg PKW" for a more
precise view into the total energy consumption of cars. I don't know
about results, unfortunately, and they still wouldn't allow a comparison
to aircraft.

Post by Daniel
Preferably
based on pragmatic observations rather than abstract constructs.

Replacing some thousand man-hours of scientific work by pragmatic
observations gets the jury's special price for bravery. ;-)

Post by Daniel
But they didn't require the special tracks having dropped the 'T' from
'TGV'. The upcoming Eastern TGV line from Paris to the Sarre carries a
EUR 10bn price tag on similar distance. And most land it will eat away
is inexpensive rural land.

Didn't you forget a little, err, a tiny detail? Those 4.6 billions for
NECIP, which havn't had the intended result? 4.6 billion $ for a line,
which is restricted to 45 trains per day, is a little more than milk
money, especially if the investment is unsuccessful in reaching the
project goals.

Post by Daniel
Assume American tilting requirement was just for comfort and not for
performance.

Tilting equipment is always for comfort, it does not help in reaching
a higher speed. For reaching the higher curve speed, you need a low
CG and lower forces in the wheel-rail contact spot.

At the curve speeds, which are reached in some European countries, the
acceleration would collect the passengers at one side of the train,
which can be called a comfort problem (we are talking 0.2g to one side,
which is impressive for standing or walking passengers).

For judgement about the Acela project, look at their original running
time goals (called "American Flyer" back then), which were silently
dropped along the way. You should find these in newspaper archives - the
targeted running time is unachievable without tilting train curve speed
on this line. In German language, a common description for this outcome
would be: "Als Tiger gestartet, als Bettvorleger gelandet." ("Started as
a tiger, landed as a bedside rug.")

Don't blame Amtrak or US engineering - 80 or 90% of the problem is
created by federal regulations.

Post by Daniel
True original Pendolino tilts and was designed to go fast
in curves because the tracks would have been modified to support V^2/R.

They weren't. The Italian ETR 450 got a maximum axleload of 12 metric
tons (Acela: 23.1 metric tons) for controlling the forces in the
wheel-rail contact spot.

Post by Daniel
TGV is no faster than a regular train on those sections that are not
purpose-built for speed.

TGV reach up to 220 km/h on improved parts of the 19th century network.
The restriction of 220 km/h is set by the track center distance of the
old network. In addition, TGV (and some other MUs) are allowed higher
curve speeds than loco-hauled trains on certain sections of the old
network.

Same in Germany: Hamburg - Berlin is now operated at 230 km/h, which
makes air traffic useless on that route. Okay, somehow you are right:
It is safe to assume, that the alignment was purpose-built for
speed (in 1847, they will have called 120 km/h "high speed").

;-)

Post by Daniel
Which Italy?

<urban professional arrogance mode>
A high-speed line Torino-Milano-Bologna-Firenze-Roma-Napoli connects
everything of importance.
</urban professional arrogance mode>

And that's what they are doing. Okay, the project wasn't finished
exactly on time, but it's there.

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
Trains in Germany are 24.1% nuclear powered, 11.8% regenerative powered
(wind, hydro), 48.6% is coal. Coal will decline, regenerative rise.

Will nuclear's share decline and what's going to replace that? What's
the status of gas cogeneration in Germany?

Nuclear plants are outphased in Germany. In the next years, one plant
per year gets switched off.

In 2025 or 2030, 30% of the German electricity will be offshore wind
energy produced above the North Sea and Baltic Sea.

We are talking about thousands of operations like
Loading Image...

Not on land, but at 40-60 m water depth (the more shallow coastal shelf
of Germany is mostly national park or bird protection area).

XX billion of private investment, special harbours just for shipping the
wind plants. At the moment, there are building permissions for the first
650 units. Some places off the main shipping routes will turn into quite
busy locations.

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
Want to go from Lisbon to Helsinki by rail?

Bits and pieces to connect by air.

Those bits and pieces have more inhabitants than the whole Pacific
Northwest, so where's the difference?

Post by Daniel
Things might change with Eurotunnel since it
is essentially bankrupt. If you'd want to make all scores even between
already spoliated small shareholders and the big banks, you'd
nationalize it and add it to the public infrastructure, relaxing
restrictions.

This might help railfreight, but not passenger traffic, which could be
improved today - for example, towards European mainland standards of
the late 1950s, which would be a major improvement.

It's all a big joke, since in the view of traffic planning, London
is the best railroad location of Europe without doubt, but ...
practically, everything beyond Brussels and Paris will stay to be air
traffic.

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
The problem of coal is CO2, nothing else.

Now I'm sure you can't work around that C problem as easily as you did
the with the S and the N :)

:-)

Well ... ... ... without doubt, it will be possible, to have a coal
plant CO2 reduction matching the reduction in SO2, which President Bush
has proudly initiated with his clear skies initiative. And since this is
a great achievement - read his lips! - everything's fine.

(Just the difference in thermal efficiency, towards today's coal plants
with 45 - 47% efficiency, and future plants at 55%, should be enough to
take care of that much CO2 reduction.)

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
Then the EU blackmailed Switzerland into accepting EU size trucks, with
some kind of "you want customs easements for our nice big market, you
will accept our trucks". It was a little more complicated, but you get
the idea.

I'm disappointed with the Swiss, thought they would have retaliated
against Europe with a Gruyere embargo, even lake blockades.

Oh, they did retaliate! Wise people retaliate against the enemy, and not
against the toolset.
In this setting, the trucking industry was the enemy, and the EU
politicians the toolset.

The Swiss voted for Alptransit with a majority of 64%. That's 9 billion
dollars for railroad tunnels, with the goal of eliminating truck
transit. If that's no retaliation, what else could qualify? Don't forget
the country size, when comparing this sum - we talk about something
like Maryland or so.

Hans-Joachim

Daniel

2006-08-16 16:50:58 UTC

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
I know that there has been an INFRAS study in 1995, which estimated
the non-renewable energy consumption for
manufacture/maintenance/recycling of cars to be 15% of their total
consumption, while the share was supposed to be 1.3% for an ICE train.

15% seems optimistic even by German standards, and there wasn't the
Cayenne-like trend back then in '95. In fact, European vehicle mileage
has steadily deteriorated over the past 20 years despite enhanced
technology. Consider an '86 Citroen BX TD did 50 miles on a diesel fuel
gallon and it was a full size sedan, no slug. Its successors had ever
worsening gas mileage. Reason? Added weight and regulations (and
aircon, and telematics, and airbags).

Having owned both European and US cars, I'd say it's not as bad with US
rigs as would first appear, especially if you have to deal with
Northeast climate/roads. A faithful computerized 6-in-line would give
25 miles/gallon for sure, but will run for 300,000 miles with minimal
maintenance through pot holes, ice and snow, something a Subaru or Audi
won't on the budget. What kills us is the daily urban commutes,
something to address with public transportation and urban policies more
than with automotive engineering.

But yes, that shouldn't prevent the industry from re-inventing the
automobile in light of a $70 barrel. Remembering how clever a Citroen
2CV was, I'd say those who think in terms of weight-savings and
simplicity would be the best positioned. Those who design bikes for
instance... Remember that most automobile brands in the US and Europe
were started by bicycle manufacturers... Not to mention the Wright
brothers. When you design against hundreds of Watts rather than
kilowatts, you're going to be creative and on the details.

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
Replacing some thousand man-hours of scientific work by pragmatic
observations gets the jury's special price for bravery. ;-)

Humility, not bravery :)

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
Didn't you forget a little, err, a tiny detail? Those 4.6 billions for
NECIP, which havn't had the intended result?

Looks like another $50,000 B52 toilet story. My bet is that this credit
line is hiding another top-secret black program, detergent-friendly
axle grease probably or something similarly awesome. US administrations
cannot be that inefficient...

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
At the curve speeds, which are reached in some European countries, the
acceleration would collect the passengers at one side of the train,
which can be called a comfort problem (we are talking 0.2g to one side,
which is impressive for standing or walking passengers).

Ok, low CG for stability and lightness for reduced stress on
tracks/ballast. Then at 0.2g you're looking at 5,000 daN lateral force
on Acela per each axle. What is a regular design limit for tracks?
Could just adding 'South Beach' to project destinations have saved the
taxpayer $4.6bn? You can see Boeing hydrofoil ferryboats overseas,
perhaps they should also start doing trains. With chance, they'd be
more able to impose weight discipline on US operators/regulators than a
loose alliance of foreign conglomerates.

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
In German language, a common description for this outcome
would be: "Als Tiger gestartet, als Bettvorleger gelandet."

A real lemon then...

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
We are talking about thousands of operations like
http://www.hadel.net/autos/assets/images/akt_multibrid17_06.jpg
http://www.hadel.net/autos/assets/images/akt_repower5m_generator_11.jpg
http://www.hadel.net/autos/assets/images/akt_repower5m_rotor_15.jpg

Impressive. You do spot some from 30,000ft off the eastern shores of
Denmark (Kiel?). North Sea is famous for its wind gusts. Lots of sand
bars and banks there. How deep is the bedrock from the sea bottom? Plus
you'd need 50ft clearance perhaps. Think they did measure 100ft max
wave amplitudes from Ekofisk oil platform sensors (centennial wave).
That's going to make for a very high pole. The only ones I saw in the
States were in California, much smaller, lots sitting iddle in the
wind.

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
Those bits and pieces have more inhabitants than the whole Pacific
Northwest, so where's the difference?

None, especially since Europe's own Northwest would extend to
Reykjavik, and then beyond to Thule. As large, if not larger.

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
(Just the difference in thermal efficiency, towards today's coal plants
with 45 - 47% efficiency, and future plants at 55%, should be enough to
take care of that much CO2 reduction.)

Better still than in-place combustion as heard was being contemplated.

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
The Swiss voted for Alptransit with a majority of 64%. That's 9 billion
dollars for railroad tunnels, with the goal of eliminating truck
transit.

If it's paid for by Brussels, certainly nobody will complain then.
Moving freight between Italy and Germany would otherwise have it go
through Gibraltar, or along the Volga route as in the golden days of
the Hansa League.
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

Hans-Joachim Zierke

2006-08-19 04:13:27 UTC

Post by Daniel
In fact, European vehicle mileage
has steadily deteriorated over the past 20 years despite enhanced
technology.

Practical observation? ;-)

EU Commision: The annual energy and transport review for 2004, page 126:

|Car makers have signed voluntary agreements to reduce CO2
|emissions from passenger cars. The Association of European
|Automobile Manufacturers (ACEA) made a voluntary commitment
|to achieve a target of 140g CO2/km for their fleet of new
|passenger cars sold in the EU by the year 2008. This would
|translate into a reduction of fuel consumption of 25 % compared
|to 1998 levels. Progress towards this commitment is reviewed
|annually by the Commission. Similar agreements have been made
|by JAMA (Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association) and
|KAMA (Korea Automobile Manufacturers Association), with a
|target date of 2009. The CO2 target is to be mainly achieved by
|technological developments and market changes linked to these
|developments. Up to now, the strategy of voluntary commitments
|has proved to be successful, and the interim target range foreseen
|for 2003 has been met by ACEA already in 2000."

A pdf of that book should be somewhere on europa.eu.int.

Post by Daniel
But yes, that shouldn't prevent the industry from re-inventing the
automobile in light of a $70 barrel. Remembering how clever a Citroen
2CV was,

Why is the Citroen C1 a bad replacement?
Loading Image...

Post by Daniel
Ok, low CG for stability and lightness for reduced stress on
tracks/ballast.

Don't forget the conical wheel profile in steel on steel operation. A
force to the side, if strong enough, makes the wheel creep up the rail,
and believe me - you don't want too much of that.

As well, the most important consideration in durability does not point
to the track, but to wheels and axles. The dynamic forces on the axles
get really interesting at high acceleration to the side.

Almost any of the tilting trains has had its axle or wheel issues, even
at the much lower axleload of the European tilting trains. At the
moment, Bombardier has to rebuild 250 tilting trains in Germany with new
axles, better design, better steel. Up to the rebuild, they are limited
to standard curve speed.
All in all, the industry didn't get it right in the first and second
generation. Ultrasonic checks have avoided a Comet experience for
tilting trains.

Post by Daniel
What is a regular design limit for tracks?

Unless there is a weak subgrade, you better forget about that, regarding
tilting trains.

For safe operation in summer, you need half a meter of ballast in front
of the tie heads, in order to avoid interesting geometric sensations in
continously welded rail. If the track is correctly ballasted and
correctly tamped, good enough for safe high temperature operation, you
don't have to worry about tilting trains. For protecting their axles and
protecting against derailment, they have to be light anyway.

The important part on the infrastructure side is: Avoiding
imperfections. Common procedure by safety authorities is, that the
operating permission will come with strings attached, for regular
measurement, and for tight procedures when maintaining the track.

A common theory in this newsgroup says, that you need great new
infrastructure for replacing air with rail. Now have a look at the
JR Hokkaido timings from New Chitose Airport, Sapporo:
http://www2.jrhokkaido.co.jp/global/english/access/index.html

As you can see, most population centers are reached within 2 hours (if
you want to call the Hokkaido settlements "population centers").

JR Hokkaido got there with infrastructure like
Loading Image...

http://zierke.com/shasta_route/picpages/super-ozora-snowshed-2005-04-24.html

on which they operate as fast as the Amtrak Acela between New York and
Boston. Doing so, everything but a few Saabs per day
http://airliners.net/open.file/0931175/L/
has disappered from the air.

New Chitose airport station is rather well integrated into the airport,
Loading Image...

but less well integrated into the railroad network. For everything
but Chitose and Sapporo, you still need a line change.

Post by Daniel
Impressive. You do spot some from 30,000ft off the eastern shores of
Denmark (Kiel?).

Nobody uses more wind energy than Denmark: 20%.

Post by Daniel
North Sea is famous for its wind gusts. Lots of sand
bars and banks there. How deep is the bedrock from the sea bottom? Plus
you'd need 50ft clearance perhaps. Think they did measure 100ft max
wave amplitudes from Ekofisk oil platform sensors (centennial wave).
That's going to make for a very high pole.

Setup procedures have been tested with several "near shore" units.
http://www.schwere-brocken.de/E-112_Nearshor/body_e-112_nearshor.html

========================================================
19.07.2006

REpower 5M: Start of construction for first offshore installation in the
Scottish North Sea

Hamburg/Nigg, 19 July 2006. The first installation of REpower 5M wind
turbines offshore - on the open sea - as part of the "Beatrice" project
is imminent. All the components for the two 5 megawatt turbines have
arrived at their destination, the Scottish harbour of Nigg, including
the 5M nacelles produced in Bremerhaven, the world's longest rotor
blades measuring 61.5 metres and the tower segments. The erection right
on the harbour's edge is under way: Today, the first nacelle will be
lifted up and assembled on the completed tower.

Following their erection, the wind turbines (each weighing 900 t in
total) will be transported 25 kilometres on the open sea at the
beginning of August, to be mounted on special jacket structures anchored
underwater at a depth of 44 metres with the help of a floating crane. A
premiere not just for REpower, but also for offshore wind energy in
general: never before have turbines been assembled in such deep water
and the installation process itself is novel, too.

The two offshore turbines will be installed as part of the largest ever
European research and development project, "DOWNVinD" (Distant Offshore
Windfarms with No Visual Impact in Deep Water), near a platform in the
Beatrice oilfield of Talisman Energy (UK). They will be connected to the
existing cable connection that previously provided the platform with its
electricity.

<marketing blabla deleted>
========================================================

As you have pointed out, offshore locations do not only have advantages.
Erection costs will be about 40% of the total, per plant. Thus investors
try to have less of them, and didn't want to start with less than 5 MW.

The blades are already a little difficult to handle during transport to
remote on shore locations:
http://www.schwere-brocken.de/E-112/body_e-112.html

Pictured are one-piece glass fiber airfoils of 52m length, weight
22 metric tons each.
Multibrid has already switched to a mix of glass and carbon fiber, and
got down to 16.5 metric tons for their 56.5 m long blades.

Forces don't go up linear. The next generation will have to have all
carbon fiber blades, and extremely high-strength steels for the hub area.

A lot of aerodynamic research will be needed. We are talking about one
piece carbon fiber airfoils with a length of > 70m, which will reach
quite interesting speeds at the blade tips. I assume, that don't have
to explain calculation of blade tip speed. Propellers will be > 150 m in
diameter.
Of the current plants, the REPower 5M has the biggest rotor, 126m.
Maximum speed 12.1 rpm.

Hans-Joachim

Daniel

2006-08-19 18:00:11 UTC

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
|Car makers have signed voluntary agreements to reduce CO2
|emissions from passenger cars. The Association of European
|Automobile Manufacturers (ACEA) made a voluntary commitment
|to achieve a target of 140g CO2/km for their fleet of new
|passenger cars sold in the EU by the year 2008.

This doesn't say that people in Europe are enticed more than ever
before to use their private vehicle in suburban mode. So you may have a
situation where the average emission per vehicle is decreasing all the
while the fleet is expanding with increased usage.

The only good figure for policymaking would be the overall emissions
cars collectively produce each year, acknowledging that automobile
usage is not a marker of development.

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
Why is the Citroen C1 a bad replacement?
http://www.km77.com/marcas/citroen/2005/c1/gama/gra/12.jpg
http://www.km77.com/marcas/citroen/2005/c1/gama/gra/09.jpg

C1/107 is to the 2CV what the New Beetle was to the original VW:
another urban-targeted-disgrace-on-wheels nonsense. Just to mention 2
telling design details. The 2CV featured a gap between a perfectly
planar deck and the seats, so just opening the trunk door above resting
heads, you had a minute-bed (double bed, but couldn't
screw...err...can't prevent-ouch!-the door from slamming shut on both
foreheads); coming handy when touring countries (or continents) which
2CV was good for. RV killer Strike Two: initial '38 spec called for
easily translation of back seat to the open air.

2CV was produced from '47 through the 90s, reliability was legendary,
nothing you couldn't fix yourself. The closest US match would be the
Willys-Overland GP, also a model in sobriety. Note that both are pure
engineering creations from the same period where materials/fuels were
scarce.

Prior to the 'Merger Between Equals', a Frenchman drove a 2CV to
Chrysler and convinced them to revisit the concept using current
technology, staying true to the 'Umbrella on Wheels' lightness of the
original creation. After initial doubts, the team of Chrysler engineers
promptly and happily produced something Andre Citroen would have
endorsed, calling it the CCV:

http://www.azom.com/details.asp?ArticleID=1347

Comes in at 1,200 Lbs (300 Lbs/pax empty weight). See how innovative
they've been with molded plastic for achieving a 210 Lbs body (not a
typical Trabant ;). Now this is an American car, designed by Chrysler
engineers not from a design center in Europe, with lots of
technological content and simplicity. Reasonably powered, this vehicle
could give around 60 miles a gallon. Original 1,400 Lbs steel 2CV had
air-cooled flat twins initially giving around 35HP, way enough - 70mph,
and a permanent lesson in kinetic/potential energy tradeoff when
driving. No Fast and Furious, but fun like a Piper Cub to handle (or a
Fielser Storch), and a $6,000 price tag only.

The shame is it wasn't produced. Detroit marketing gurus - who'd want
you believe fitting a hard-wired iPod connector into a Lincoln
Navigator is a major automotive milestone -, would not promote those
sound automotive concepts with the young people. So I think we'd rather
have to witness the agony of the last 2 remaining US automakers, unable
to adapt. Newton went missing as you say, but Darwin will shortly make
a few industrial cases in point.

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
As you have pointed out, offshore locations do not only have advantages.
Erection costs will be about 40% of the total, per plant. Thus investors
try to have less of them, and didn't want to start with less than 5 MW.

Do we know what the yearly output of a 5MW looks like in the area?
Would they do reverse hydro to store energy or use cogeneration to
streamline production?

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
The blades are already a little difficult to handle during transport to
http://www.schwere-brocken.de/E-112/body_e-112.html

I am disappointed. They forgot put up the 'Langsamm Fahren, Bitte' road
sign... This can't be Germany?
Those pictures start make the nuclear phasing out look credible. Keep
up the good work.

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
A lot of aerodynamic research will be needed. We are talking about one
piece carbon fiber airfoils with a length of > 70m, which will reach
quite interesting speeds at the blade tips. I assume, that don't have
to explain calculation of blade tip speed. Propellers will be > 150 m in
diameter.

Incredible. Inertia when spinning will be 'Kolossal', obviously they
are not going to adapt to shifting winds like a backyard model... More
likely would be managed globally with weather tracking systems...
Complexities that can only be addressed at network/national levels...
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

JF Mezei

2006-08-20 01:15:49 UTC

Post by Daniel
original creation. After initial doubts, the team of Chrysler engineers
promptly and happily produced something Andre Citroen would have
The shame is it wasn't produced. Detroit marketing gurus - who'd want
you believe fitting a hard-wired iPod connector into a Lincoln
Navigator is a major automotive milestone -, would not promote those
sound automotive concepts

Same happened with "SMART". Chrysler in the USA refused to distribute
this Daimler product saying there was no market for it in the USA. (they
acknowledged this mistake and have agreed to distribute it by 2007).

This of course, is just an excuse. The US car industry has such a huge
marketing machine that they can set trends, they can set customer
desires and wishes. If they wanted to make small cars trendy, they could
do so very quickly just by changing their advertising. However, because
selling trucks to soccer moms is more profitable, that is what they got
their marketing machines to do.

The problem here is that neither Amrtrak nor airlines have the deep
marketing pockets that car manufacturers have, so it is much harder for
them to set trends "against" the car industry.

Actively changing population travel patterns can be very easy with lots
of marketing, or very hard/lengthy by just letting things go based on
market reaction to prices, security hassles etc.
.
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

JF Mezei

2006-08-16 18:29:16 UTC

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
Tilting equipment is always for comfort, it does not help in reaching
a higher speed. For reaching the higher curve speed, you need a low
CG and lower forces in the wheel-rail contact spot.

Well, technically, tilting does help reach higher speeds. The real limit
is one where the CG falls outside the tracks and the carriage then falls
on its side.... Tilting the carriage does move the CG back towards the
inside of the curve. However, I think is this pedantic because high
speed trains operate on tracks whose curve radius don't even come close
to causing non tilting carriages to fall over on their sides at train speeds.

The problem with active tilting mechanisms such as used by the canadian
LRC was that it actually made passengers feel worse because it didn't
react at the exact right time, so passengers would feel the onset of a
curve, then feel the carriage tilt, and a similar unsynchronised movemnt
at the exit of the curve. (and of course, initially, during teh first
few years of debugging, some carriages would go nuts and tilt left and
right constantly, turning the carriage into an amusement park ride :-)

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
For judgement about the Acela project, look at their original running
time goals (called "American Flyer" back then), which were silently
dropped along the way.

This is like every large project, including the Shuttle. Proponents
present a blue sky project with incredible promises to politicians who
then approve it. Then, once approved, they have to scale down the
project because of cost overruns and in the end, you don't get quite
what had been promised.

And this is where one must applaud the Japanese, French whose
governments didn't flinch and continued to plow through with the
original project of high speed trains no matter how much they costed.

The Northeast corridor in the USA is an existing right of way that is
very hard to move, so the best Amtrak could hope is to just improve it
as best it could, and continue to allow co-existence with conventional
trains (commuter and other amtrak trains) on the line. When they build a
TGV line, they don't do compromises and build a totally new one. To do
so in the northeast corridor would have been a HUGE undertaking with
lots of expropriation of land/homes/industries to build a right of way
that was without compromises.

It is a lot easier to build a rail line through farmer's fields than
through towns that straddle the whole length between two major USA
cities in the east.

This doesn't mean that trains in the USA aren't an option. However,
because they are limited in speeds due to track condition, it limits the
range at which the train can compete against air.

While rails are more environmentally friendly than roads (less trees
need to be cut, narrower right of way), it is still quite a "scar" on
the land and is quite disruptive because not all small roads get their
bridge over the high speed tracks, so local residents find themselves
having to do big detours to get across the tracks. (a real TGV line is
fenced to prevent farm animals from wandering onto the tracks).

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
TGV reach up to 220 km/h on improved parts of the 19th century network.

Yep. I remember doing St-Raphael-Lyons-Paris in late 1980s (1st
generation TGV trains), and I was quite impressed with the speeds on the
conventional section of tracks. But there is one big reason why they ca
do that: freight trains.

North American freight trains are very heavy compared to european
freight trains, and the fleet of freight cars is HUGE and not maintained
to such great standards. As a result, freight trains in north america
damage the tracks much more than the freight trains in europe. So
passenger trains that share tracks with freight are , by default, speed
limited in north america due to track conditions.

There is also the issue of track maintenace. In Canada for instance,
track maintenance occurs only during summer. And because of freight
trains, the railways will put very limiting slow orders on those tracks
that last well after the work has been finished (to ensure that it has
settle properly for the very heavy freight trains). By comparison, in
Japan, they do high speed track maintenance every night, and when they
are done, the track is ready for high speeed the next morning.

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
It's all a big joke, since in the view of traffic planning, London
is the best railroad location of Europe without doubt, but ...
practically, everything beyond Brussels and Paris will stay to be air
traffic.

This is the real important point here. And one which brings back
integratiohn. Say a salesperson has to travel:
London-Paris-Frankfurt-London. He can do London-Paris by train. He can
do Paris-Frabkfurt either by train or plane, and will want to do
Frankfurt-London by plane. The pricing structure of legacy air
carriers doesn't really allow such a combination and BA or LH will
gladly sell the guy a very expensive one way ticket for the FRA-LON bit.
Being able to integrate the ticketing for this journey would truly allow
passengers to choose the best way to get A->B irrespective of what B-C
would be.

Now, when you compare those routes where conventional trains can compete
against air (there are plenty of those in the UK), most of those air
routes would be served by smaller DASH-8 style aircraft. One has to then
ask the question about the economic sof operation of a conventional
train against a DASH-8 (or ATR or equivalent turboprop). Is the train
still that much cheaper ?

If, for instance, there were a big train hub at LHR, that had tons of
services from cities without 200km radius, how many feeder flights would
that eliminate and how much extra capacity would this give for LHR to
give to long haul flights ? Could this be a cheaper solution to airport
congestion: shift short haul flights to trains ?
.
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

Hans-Joachim Zierke

2006-08-10 02:06:12 UTC

Post by Daniel
That European Parliament initiative was swiftly countered by interests
in the travel industry. There are good lobbyists in Brussels. Plus
Europe just relies too much on tourism (which should be fine).

Relying on tourism means, that transatlantic traffic won't be touched,
and that traffic from Glasgow to Malaga won't be touched. Plus there are
member states like Ireland, Malta, Cyprus, which have a fundamental
interest, that all international traffic isn't touched. But this does
not outrule, to punish short air hops for the last 200 km of a journey
by the tax system.
It's not easy to create something just and fair, admittedly.

Post by Daniel
Agree. But we should not overestimate our capacity to address this
issue with technology. May not deliver enough.

We haven't yet scratched the surface, when it comes to improve the fuel
efficiency of travel - the possibilities are gigantic.

Compare the old generation of intermodal facilities at airports with new
ones. Old generation airport railroad stations offer a ride into the
city center, with some rapid transit or commuter train hardware.

The new generation allows a direct plunge on the railroad network core.
Best example might be AMS, where under the main terminal hall, just one
stairway away, you'll find one of the main interchange stations of the
national railroad grid, typically offering connections to everywhere
every 30 minutes.

At the moment, the main obstacle for making good use of this is the
capabilities, are the airline reservation systems.

For example, American Airlines offers travel to Bonn, Cologne,
Düsseldorf, Essen, Freiburg, Göttingen, Hamburg, Hannover, Karlsruhe,
Kassel, Mannheim, Munich, Nuremberg, Stuttgart and Würzburg by codeshare
agreement via FRA. But there won't be any technical obstacle, to sell
an American Airlines ticket to every bus stop in Germany. If you get
out of the plane in FRA, you can buy a ticket to every bus stop at the
TVMs, and the TVM will print your next connection to this bus stop.
There is no technical obstacle, why a travel bureau in Cornfield
Junction, Iowa, shouldn't be able to do the same.

Another necessity would be integration of air travel into the timetable
systems. For buses and trains, it already works quite well, but not for
aircraft.
Let's take a practical example: I'll ask DB's Internet Timetable for my
next connection to Kyle of Lochalsh. I'll get back:
+-------------------------+--------+--------+----------+----------------+
| Station | Arr. | Dep. | Train No | Comments |
+-------------------------+--------+--------+----------+----------------+
| Hüllhorst Mitte, Hüllho | | 12:03 | Bus 615 |1. |
| E.-M.-Remarqueplatz/Bah | 12:29 | | on foot | 6 min. |
| Löhne(Westf) | | 12:45 | RE 4322 |FB |
| Dortmund Hbf | 14:04 | 14:09 | RE 10422 |FB |
| Aachen Hbf | 16:45 | 16:58 | THA 9452 |RP GP 55 |
| Bruxelles-Midi | 18:32 | | transfer | 24 min. |
| Bruxelles-Midi EST | | 18:56 | EST 9157 |RP SZ CI 55 QP |
| London Waterloo Int. | 20:18 | | transfer | 45 min. |
| London Euston | | 21:15 | --- |RP K2 SW MB |
| Inverness | 08:30 | 08:53 | --- |K2 BT |
| Kyle of Lochalsh | 11:20 | | | |
+-------------------------+--------+--------+----------+----------------+
| Duration: 24:17; |

It already integrates local buses, local trains, long distance trains,
local trains in Britain, but I might not be willing to spend 24 hours
on it (though using the sleeper from London to Inverness does not look
too bad). So these electronic information systems would need to offer an
option, which integrates air traffic for journeys > xy hours. Of course,
I would expect, that the timetable feedback integrates the S-Bahn to
Hannover-Langenhagen, and the bus from Glasgow airport to Paisley's
Gilmour Street station, or whereever the best air section might end.

If done right, such system could also offer options for energy efficient,
cheap, and fast travel, so that aircraft would be used for those journey
legs, for which they really make sense.

When talking about saving energy in a realistic fashion, that's the task:
Using aircrafts for those journey legs, for which they make sense.

Hans-Joachim

Daniel

2006-08-11 14:32:22 UTC

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
The new generation allows a direct plunge on the railroad network core.
Best example might be AMS, where under the main terminal hall, just one
stairway away, you'll find one of the main interchange stations of the
national railroad grid, typically offering connections to everywhere
every 30 minutes.

Schiphol is a busy platform and the regional trains there are
outstanding. But the Netherlands are a rather small sized country that
can all be served by regional. When you have to handle bigger distances
you need more than a regional interchange. For instance, at CDG, you
have a TGV train station with very few TGVs coasting, and a regional
train service to rails hubs in Paris, which makes the experience all
less attractive.

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
At the moment, the main obstacle for making good use of this is the
capabilities, are the airline reservation systems.

SNCF in France uses the Amadeus airline software ticketing and
reservation system, and assume you can buy your connecting airline
ticket from their website since it's advertised (never tried though).

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
There is no technical obstacle, why a travel bureau in Cornfield
Junction, Iowa, shouldn't be able to do the same.

I would see a few reasons. You'd visit a US bus station to get some of
the Steinbeck ambiance. Not for immersion into an intermodal traveling
experience. Buses are on schedule, it's just there aren't enough
frequencies, nodal density in most cases. You'd also need drive to the
bus station if you can't get dropped there.

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
Another necessity would be integration of air travel into the timetable
systems. For buses and trains, it already works quite well, but not for
aircraft.

Just checked, SCNF would do it:
http://www.voyages-sncf.com/leisure/fr/launch/home/
They call it 'Voyage Alacarte', you type in departure/arrival, specify
train+flights, optionally you can throw in car rental and hotel
reservation. You get everything online. If it's similar to other online
service they have, you'd be issued a tag after you pay online (you may
not pay and decide to reserve only), and can get your tickets at any
train station.

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
Using aircrafts for those journey legs, for which they make sense.

I can see Lufthansa sprechen mit Deutsche Bahn oder Air France parler a
la SNCF, but I don't see United finding the right protocol of exchange
with Amtrack or regional operators. Requires sophistication that's not
supported in US rail.
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

JF Mezei

2006-08-11 19:09:11 UTC

Post by Daniel
For instance, at CDG, you
have a TGV train station with very few TGVs coasting, and a regional
train service to rails hubs in Paris, which makes the experience all
less attractive.

While the service may not have been developped, the infrastructure is
there to be used if considtions change to foster greater TGV service out
of CDG.

Consider the (remote) possibility that current restrictions in the UK
become permanent. It might become much more palatable to catch an
eurostar from London to CDG and catch a long haul flight there. In such
a case, you might see many more TGV trains go to CDG.

Also, if the cost of fuel continues to rise, it is likely that you'll
see reduced domestic air services within France with trains used to feed
long hauls out of CDG. Whether Air France would charter TGVs that go to
CDG, or just code share with existing SNCF services, I am not sure.
Obviously, it would start with just interlining.

Chartering might start to happen if there is an active decision by the
government to move domestic air services to trains, with Air France
getting some help to buy its own trains to provide its own services.

Post by Daniel
I would see a few reasons. You'd visit a US bus station to get some of
the Steinbeck ambiance. Not for immersion into an intermodal traveling
experience.

Again, code-sharing/charters are quite possible. I look at KLM services
from Ottawa to AMS, they have a chartered bus that leaves Ottawa's train
station (where PAX check their luggage to AMS) and operates to
Montreal's YUL airport where luggage is automatically transfered to the
aircraft and passengers just go through security (they were given
boarding passes at Ottawa). It is a KLM "flight" operated on equipment
"BUS".

Bus services are also getting organised. They have interlining
capabilities (for instance, Orléans Express interlines with Greyhound,
allowing passengers and their luggage to travel from Quebec City to
Toronto by bus.)

Post by Daniel
I can see Lufthansa sprechen mit Deutsche Bahn oder Air France parler a
la SNCF, but I don't see United finding the right protocol of exchange
with Amtrack or regional operators. Requires sophistication that's not
supported in US rail.

Icelandair has code shared with Amtrak from Newwark for a number of
years (not sure if it is still applicable).
.
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

John L

2006-08-11 20:47:27 UTC

Whether Air France would charter TGVs that go to CDG, or just code
share with existing SNCF services, I am not sure. Obviously, it
would start with just interlining.

They codeshare now. AF7181, for example, is really Thalys 9907, a
train from CDG to Brussels.

Couldn't get their act together to put people on the Via trains that
run from that train station and stop at Dorval? Too bad.

Icelandair has code shared with Amtrak from Newwark for a number of
years (not sure if it is still applicable).

I'm pretty sure the flights were from BWI, where the train->air
connection has been available for much longer.

R's,
John
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

JF Mezei

2006-08-12 02:43:58 UTC

Post by John L
Couldn't get their act together to put people on the Via trains that
run from that train station and stop at Dorval? Too bad.

VIA, under Mulroney, implemeted strict baggage policies: NO BAGGAGE,
just hand luggage. (luggage cars cost extra since VIA pays the raiways
for each car in a VIA train, so luggage cars, dining cars etc were all
removed from service except on a few token trains). Also, the VIA
frequencies are not sufficient.

With a KLM chartered bus, the bus driver has a radio that can talk to
KLM operations to advise them of the bus's position if the bus is late
etc etc. The bus, after getting the PAX off aty the terminal entrance,
then moves tyo the airsiode entry point where the luggage is transfered
onto trolleys that are brought to the flight luggage makeup area.

Yes, it *could* work if we had decent train service.

Note that Dorval/Trudeau airport authority is about to spend another
couple hundred million bucks to give construction contracts to their
friends to bring the tracks into the Dorval/Trudeau terminal (huge
detour even though the tracks are within 10 minute walk from the
terminal) and build a train station there. An underground walkway to the
existing train station would cost a lot less, be bar less disturbing to
the local roadway system and allow passengers to not only access VIA
trans, but also the local commuter train as well as the Dorval bus
terminal).

Detouring the trains will cost a LOT of money and huge infrastructure,
bridges and elevated tracks. All this to bring DIESEL trains into a
terminal. (which the health and safety board will probably block,
leaving dorval with an unusable train sation within its terminal).

The idea is good, but the implementation completely flawed. And this is
really the story of north american train service.

In France, when they decided to build a high speed train, they went all
the way, with he government providing initial funding to do it right .
(dedicated right of way, fenced, bridges etc to allow true high speed).

In north america they just spend enough monety to increase the speed
over existing rights of way and since they don't do the job fully, it is
never really good enough.

I think the train service into JFK is another example. Something
(politics ?) prevented single train service from the airport to Penn
Station.
.
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

John L

2006-08-12 02:56:14 UTC

Post by JF Mezei
I think the train service into JFK is another example. Something
(politics ?) prevented single train service from the airport to Penn
Station.

It was mostly political, partly logistical. The JFK train to the
plane is technically compatible with the LIRR commuter line that runs
from Jamaica to Penn Station in NYC, so I suppose with a few billion
dollars more they could splice the tracks togther at Jamaica. It is
my impression that at peak hours the LIRR platforms and tracks are
completely full now, so it's not clear how they could make room for
dedicated airport trains.

R's,
John
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

Hans-Joachim Zierke

2006-08-14 19:22:10 UTC

Post by John L
They codeshare now. AF7181, for example, is really Thalys 9907, a
train from CDG to Brussels.

But that's no example for the cooperation and integration, that I'm
thinking of. When the new link in Belgium was ready, Air France
understood, that they couldn't compete any longer. Rail is simply too
fast on that link.
They didn't try to win new long-distance passengers using the air-rail
interface, but instead, were forced to give up, and now run the old
traffic in a new fashion. (It's an example for a kind of thinking, that
will make us smile in 20 years.)

The worst situation of an international carrier is the following: The
airline can no longer attract short-distance traffic in relevant
numbers, but still needs to feed its international routes. They either
loose international passengers, or operate short distance flights in a
quite lossy fashion.
Building the second railroad station at FRA, by squeezing 300 km/h
trains through 1500 m curves, is called an investment into rail today.
In 20 years, people will call it a subsidy to Lufthansa.

Post by John L
I'm pretty sure the flights were from BWI, where the train->air
connection has been available for much longer.

Calling BWI a train->air connection needs a type of passenger, who is
very patient and willing to suffer. Okay, in these days, passengers get
some training...

Hans-Joachim

John L

2006-08-14 19:31:16 UTC

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
Calling BWI a train->air connection needs a type of passenger, who is
very patient and willing to suffer. Okay, in these days, passengers get
some training...

How much do the details of the connection matter? At PHL there is a
commuter line station in the airport between the terminal and the
parking garage. There are reliable trains every 30 minutes, but they
are SEPTA commuter trains, so you have to change for Amtrak and other
lines at 30th St. They seem to get a fair amount of use, but I think
mostly from airport employees.

At EWR they extended the inter-terminal tram to a new station on the
Northeast Corridor mainline with NJT and Amtrak trains. Haven't used
it yet so I don't know how popular it is. The access is the same as
getting in from the rental car return or the long term parking lots.
Someone said that CO interlines with Amtrak which would make sense.

SFO has a BART station with trains into the city and East Bay, and one
stop from the Millbrae commuter train station. BART is quite popular,
I use it all the time if I'm heading north or east.

R's,
John
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

Hans-Joachim Zierke

2006-08-14 22:42:31 UTC

Post by John L
How much do the details of the connection matter?

They make all the difference.

Every airline knows, that treating the passenger as a guest makes a lot
of difference. Why do you think, that this suddenly does not apply for
the air-rail interface?

Let's use an example: You have a meeting in the Stuttgart CBD, and want
to go home to the USA via FRA. ZWS - FRA is a distance of about 210 km
by rail (too lazy to look up the precise figure), and STR - FRA is a
crow flight of 157 km - don't know the precise distance through air
corridors.

ZWS - FRA is an 1:15h journey by rail, every hour (7:51, 8:51, 9:51,
etc.). Every 2 hours, there is an additional ICE connection in 1:11h
(7:27, 9:27, 11:27...). Air is faster, of course, but the S-Bahn from
Stadtmitte to the airport needs 25 minutes (because it stops 9 times
inbetween), and there's not much of a chance to beat it by car. At a
good time of the day, a cab might be slightly faster, but in rush
hour... forget it.

Some more details: If you enter the main door of Stuttgart Hbf
3 minutes before departure, you will make it to your train. (Add another
3 minutes for a foreigner not familiar with the railroad system.) You
might not want to try this at the airport.
So all in all, if you travel from the city center of Stuttgart to FRA,
rail is faster and more convenient than a connection flight.

BUT, and now the big BUT: If the "airport connection" in FRA would look
as in BWI, almost nobody would use it! The transfer time would slow down
the rail option, plus the whole setup isn't very inviting. Luckily, the
real thing is an attachment to the terminal instead:
Loading Image...

(Sorry, very small, but other pictures don't give an overview.)

Not as good as in AMS, but not bad either. On the ground, the transfer
between station and terminal building looks like
Loading Image...

and at least Lufthansa provides check-in at the railroad station.

Post by John L
At PHL there is a
commuter line station in the airport between the terminal and the
parking garage. There are reliable trains every 30 minutes, but they
are SEPTA commuter trains, so you have to change for Amtrak and other
lines at 30th St.

JF Mezei

2006-08-15 01:20:07 UTC

Post by John L
How much do the details of the connection matter?

Actually, they do matter. If you are an airline code sharing on a train
service, you want this to be as seamless as possible for the passenger.
Single ticket, boarding passes issued at point of origin, and possibly
seamless luggage transfer. (this is done in switzerland for instance,
and was done at victoria station for trains to Gatwick (not sure if
still done due to security changes).

Having good commuter connection at the airport is good to move local
passengers between airport and that city. But it isn't something which
an airline can sell as part of its service to extend the reach/feed of
its international routes.

I think that EWR and BWI are perhaps the only 2 airports in the USA that
can really have integrated tarin/plane because you can catch amtrak
right from the airport.

In Paris, if you have TGV service right from CDG, then it can be truly
integrated. But if you must take a RER to Gare de Lyons or some other
station to catch your TGV, then it isn't a truly integrated solution.
Remember that once you are in the airport, you're a lot closer to a
domestic destination by air because you no longer have to worry about
getting to the airport. Similarly, if, from the airport, you need to get
into town to catch a train, the train becomes much slower because of
that extra travel, especially if the commuter service isn't too friendly
with people with luggage.
.
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

Daniel

2006-08-11 22:28:42 UTC

Post by JF Mezei
While the service may not have been developped, the infrastructure is
there to be used if considtions change to foster greater TGV service out
of CDG.

It looks more like a hub feeder that works off a Paris bypass. You'd
still need to get on a regional train and subway to one of the major
train stations in the center to have all the TGV destinations and
schedules.

Post by JF Mezei
Consider the (remote) possibility that current restrictions in the UK
become permanent. It might become much more palatable to catch an
eurostar from London to CDG and catch a long haul flight there. In such
a case, you might see many more TGV trains go to CDG.

UK situation is no different to that of France. Eurotunnel is a
sensitive spot closely watched by security forces, and there has been
threats/attacks on TGVs. That's why you have had soldiers patrolling
train stations for 10 years now in Paris. US carriers have been targets
in the past when flying out of Paris also.

Post by JF Mezei
Also, if the cost of fuel continues to rise, it is likely that you'll
see reduced domestic air services within France with trains used to feed
long hauls out of CDG. Whether Air France would charter TGVs that go to
CDG, or just code share with existing SNCF services, I am not sure.
Obviously, it would start with just interlining.

This process was started several years back before privatization with
the absorption by AF of most other national carriers. The strategy was
to have a hub at CDG and near monopoly at national level. In fact, the
TGV network serves this strategy beyond the borders.

Post by JF Mezei
Chartering might start to happen if there is an active decision by the
government to move domestic air services to trains, with Air France
getting some help to buy its own trains to provide its own services.

They don't have to buy the TGV trains that are currently profitably run
by the government monopoly and serve their strategy well. Tracks are
managed by a distinct entity and is supported by the taxpayers. The
money-loosing intra-regional traffic was dumped onto regions and
supported on those budgets. In fact, the government is still strongly
committed to AF and focused on where the money is. There have been lots
of complaints about how slots were attributed to AF by ADP, which
privatization has been postponed after collapse of parts of terminal E.

Post by JF Mezei
Again, code-sharing/charters are quite possible. I look at KLM services
from Ottawa to AMS, they have a chartered bus that leaves Ottawa's train
station (where PAX check their luggage to AMS) and operates to
Montreal's YUL airport where luggage is automatically transfered to the
aircraft and passengers just go through security (they were given
boarding passes at Ottawa). It is a KLM "flight" operated on equipment
"BUS".

SNCF has increasing fleet of bus to replace unprofitable rail links and
I'm quite sure you can start a journey to Quebec on one of those when
you buy the package from SNCF. It would be the job of the SNCF to feed
the hub in Paris whether by rail or by road, or combination and sell
the whole travel fare. Otherwise there are AF bus shuttles you'd pay a
fee for regardless of carrier.

Post by JF Mezei
Icelandair has code shared with Amtrak from Newwark for a number of
years (not sure if it is still applicable).

Yes, just learned that Amtrak has been doing code sharing for years,
and I'm still chewing my hat contemplating how far those traks can take
you.
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

Jeff Hacker

2006-08-12 12:40:27 UTC

Post by JF Mezei

Post by Daniel
For instance, at CDG, you
have a TGV train station with very few TGVs coasting, and a regional
train service to rails hubs in Paris, which makes the experience all
less attractive.

While the service may not have been developped, the infrastructure is
there to be used if considtions change to foster greater TGV service out
of CDG.
Consider the (remote) possibility that current restrictions in the UK
become permanent. It might become much more palatable to catch an
eurostar from London to CDG and catch a long haul flight there. In such
a case, you might see many more TGV trains go to CDG.
Also, if the cost of fuel continues to rise, it is likely that you'll
see reduced domestic air services within France with trains used to feed
long hauls out of CDG. Whether Air France would charter TGVs that go to
CDG, or just code share with existing SNCF services, I am not sure.
Obviously, it would start with just interlining.
Chartering might start to happen if there is an active decision by the
government to move domestic air services to trains, with Air France
getting some help to buy its own trains to provide its own services.

Post by Daniel
I would see a few reasons. You'd visit a US bus station to get some of
the Steinbeck ambiance. Not for immersion into an intermodal traveling
experience.

Again, code-sharing/charters are quite possible. I look at KLM services
from Ottawa to AMS, they have a chartered bus that leaves Ottawa's train
station (where PAX check their luggage to AMS) and operates to
Montreal's YUL airport where luggage is automatically transfered to the
aircraft and passengers just go through security (they were given
boarding passes at Ottawa). It is a KLM "flight" operated on equipment
"BUS".
Bus services are also getting organised. They have interlining
capabilities (for instance, Orléans Express interlines with Greyhound,
allowing passengers and their luggage to travel from Quebec City to
Toronto by bus.)

Icelandair has code shared with Amtrak from Newwark for a number of
years (not sure if it is still applicable).
.

And Continental has a considerable code-share operation with Amtrak ex
Newark in the U.S. Northeast, including such "extras" as reciprocal lounge
access.

Post by JF Mezei
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to

--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

Hans-Joachim Zierke

2006-08-12 00:24:42 UTC

Post by Daniel
Schiphol is a busy platform and the regional trains there are
outstanding. But the Netherlands are a rather small sized country that
can all be served by regional. When you have to handle bigger distances
you need more than a regional interchange.

The high-speed line to Antwerpen passes through Schiphol, and will go
into service RSN. (Main problem is, that they have ordered the trains
on low bid from Ansaldo Breda, a company seemingly unable to deliver any
train on time.)
Without the absurd regulations for the channel tunnel, Schiphol - London
by highspeed train would be fast enough in future. St. Pancras is
/slightly/ better located than Gatwick or Stansted... ;-)

But the situation isn't expected to improve very soon, so Amsterdam -
London will stay to be an air journey.

But serving Schiphol - Antwerpen/Liege/Brussels/Charleroi/Lille by air
will be nonsense in future, and since KLM is one of the high-speed train
operators, they are expected to make good use of it, freeing up airport
slots for more profitable longer distance traffic.

Post by Daniel
SNCF in France uses the Amadeus airline software ticketing and
reservation system, and assume you can buy your connecting airline
ticket from their website since it's advertised (never tried though).

There have been some attempts, yes - even in the 1980s, there were the
first attempts at intermodality!
http://hobby-eisenbahnfotografie.de/php/bilderanzeige.php?id=0195&was=fg&si=121
http://hobby-eisenbahnfotografie.de/php/bilderanzeige.php?id=0195&was=fg&si=121
http://hobby-eisenbahnfotografie.de/php/bilderanzeige.php?id=0196&was=fg&si=121
(Lufthansa flights, special Lufthansa interior, exclusively for
Lufthansa passengers, with Lufthansa cabin crew.)

But all the past and current attempts are some lightyears away from a
truely usable system.

Post by Daniel
I would see a few reasons. You'd visit a US bus station to get some of
the Steinbeck ambiance. Not for immersion into an intermodal traveling
experience. Buses are on schedule, it's just there aren't enough
frequencies, nodal density in most cases.

There is no question, that it is a non-starter in the USA, simply
because there is no acceptable railroad system. But this does not
outrule, to improve intermodality and fuel efficiency in other parts
of the world.
And this will easily work with American tourists. Just look at Americans
visiting Switzerland: Within 3 days, they will have adapted to the
public transport system. Just make it easy enough. This can work the
same for intermodal journey setups, if providing the right user
interface.

Post by Daniel
http://www.voyages-sncf.com/leisure/fr/launch/home/

All that I can get there, is a message
"Nous recherchons les meilleurs prix disponibles.
Merci de patienter quelques secondes."

and that's still there after half an hour. Not exactly a usability
dream. ;-)

Obviously, American Airlines and ANA and TAP and China Airlines have
been able to sprechen mit Deutsche Bahn, too.

But these agreements are still far away from the possibilities of
integrated travel. The traveler wants to get from door A to door B. The
travel information system and his/her ticket should at least bring the
passenger to the nearest bus stop.

Hans-Joachim

Daniel

2006-08-12 10:27:02 UTC