Tuesday, March 20, 2007

[french tgv] are you willing to risk your life

For those who like to prostrate themselves before the great god Onwards and Upwards, the news of France's pursuit of the ever higher and faster will be a joyful event. For others who see other sorts of consequences flowing from such news - they will not be quite so overjoyed.

French officials have inaugurated a new high-speed train link, which will cut travel time between Paris and more than a dozen cities in Germany, Luxembourg, Switzerland and north-east France. The train, TGV, will allow travellers to go from Paris to Reims in 45 minutes, and from Paris to Strasbourg, on the German border, in just two hours and 20 minutes. Under the old schedules, the trip to Strasbourg was nearly twice as long, at three hours and 50 minutes.

TGV stands for "train a grande vitesse," which literally means high-speed train. Tickets, reservations and timetables for the TGV East service will be available starting April 10 on raileurope.com. Trains on the line are expected to travel at speeds of up to 320 kmh, compared to a maximum of 300 kmh for current TGV trains.

Sorry but 300kph is just too damned fast for a train which goes round bends, no matter how great the magnetic hold or levitation. Fiddly little details like human and mechanical error are usually swamped or forgotten in the Eyes-on-the-Glory mindset which, after all, is a form of madness with a difference - it plays games with our lives.

5 comments:

  1. James writes: "Sorry but 300kph is just too damned fast for a train which goes round bends, no matter how great the magnetic hold or levitation."

    Obviously, there was a time when trains did not go that fast; now they can.

    Forces applying when going round bends can be changed by camber (providing that old pseudo-force: the centrifugal). This, effective, turns sideways (lateral) force into one that pushes against the ground.

    Also, in order to allow traversing of curves at different speeds in greater comfort and safety, we now have tilting trains (and Wikipeadia states "aeroplanes and bicycles simply tilt in place"). One day, we might have tilting track, which would be even better! Or maybe we can just manage with an announcement: "your train driver warns that a bend is coming up; hold on to your coffee cups".

    Again quoting from Wikipeadia: "France, building its TGV, avoided the problem by building a special new rail network for the high-speed trains which minimized curves, likewise Japan ..." So, for the TGV, whatever technological risks exist in tilting trains are not present; just compulsory land purchase and another constraint on the engineering of track: more straightness.

    Please James, can you not accept that engineers work really hard to deliver use of technology for the benefit of society. They balance, in a practical way, safety and environmental aspects against the benefits of each particular use of the technology. If you know of good cause why 300kph/320kph (allowing for whatever technology is included), is not adequately safe, put it into the public domain so it may be considered.

    Oh, and concerning the Lambrigg crash, was that not down to human failing well outside the specified maintenance procedures? Such things happen, very sadly. But it is the overall picture of benefit and dis-benefit that human civilisation should work on, rather than slagging off or avoiding the technology on which our quality of life is actually built.

    More usefully than criticising trains, why not work on making roads safer. This thought is from the UK statistics I provided on your previous referenced post. Fatalities per unit distance driven on motorways are around 18 times less than the all-road average. So building more motorways would help to reduce road fatalities by taking traffic from less safe roads.

    And, of course, travel by train is slightly safer than travel by motorway. For long distances on main routes, it can also be quicker and less wearing. This might attract more people to use it, so demanding it to be less quick does not seem constructive.

    Best regards

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'd like to try it but it's probably a bit fast for me, too!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Nigel, you make some excellent points and you are the voice of reason. The heartfelt request to the Luddite Higham to consider the contribution the engineer is making is eminently reasonable ... until you write, Nigel:

    "Oh, and concerning the Lambrigg crash, was that not down to human failing well outside the specified maintenance procedures?"

    Precisely, old chap. It's the old 'best laid plans'again. And the margin for error only increases with speed, though technology does design structures to cope with it.

    This was so with my A Class catamaran which, for the time, was state of the art. Hurtled around a course and everything ran like a Boeing until the day human error intervened and whammo - one Higham through the air and the boat leaping up in the air and crashing upside down.

    That's all I was saying.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Beeing a frequent user of the TGV (Thalys line Brussels-Paris) I can guarantee you that you do not feel unsafe.

    The TGV network is independent the old railines. It is modern and dedicated to high speed.

    Once it has to use an old railine, it simply slows down.

    The comfort is nice and I can take a rest on my way.

    It is really amazing to see the landscape while on such a high speed :-)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Good point, anonymous. Pity you/re anonymous.

    ReplyDelete

Comments need a moniker of your choosing before or after ... no moniker, not posted, sorry.