From the Kearney Files
Industrial Australian and Mining Standard November December 1922.
By Elfric Wells Chalmers Kearney.
Surface and Elevated Railways.
The desirability and usefulness of rapid transit requires no argument in its favour. It is an accepted fact that the progress and well - being of a country depend upon the facility with which ideas, commodities and persons can be exchanged or moved from place to place. It is remarkable that, in an epoch of unprecedented acceleration in other directions, so little increase in railway speeds has occured in the last 60 years. As early as 1846 a speed of 78 miles an hour was regularly attained on the Great Western Railway between Paddington and Didcot. In 1854 81 miles an hour was reached. Present day operation of steam and electric railways shows no practical improvement upon this record.
It is generally conceded by engineers that the railway in its present form has reached its maximum as regards speed, and no substantial improvement is looked for even with electricity as the motive power. This statement is made with the full knowledge of the of the important high speed electric railway test carried out between Berlin and Zossen in 190, when a maximum speed of 130 miles an hour was attained. If they did anything, these tests showed that the existing methods of track construction are unsuitable for speed in excess of 80 miles an hour. When this speed was exceeded it became necessary to re - lay the permanent way with heavier rails packed with larger ballast.
This again became unsafe at 100 miles an hour, and the addition of two guide rails was resorted to, bringing the total weight of the single track up to 460.53lb per yard. To keep the cars on the rails at the high speeds it was necessary to make them exceptionally heavy --84 metric tons each. Yet such weights offer the worst conditions at high speeds. That is a difficulty which would appear to put the standard track out of court as a practical high speed railway. It follows therefore that if there is to be any decided increase in railway speeds,we must turn our backs on present - day methods and resort to some new form of construction specialised for the accomplishment of the end view. The author came to this conclusion in 1902 before the Berlin tests proved the twin - rail track to be unsatisfactory for high speeds.
The argument behind the evolution of the Kearney High Speed Railway may be summarised as follows :--
Higher railway speeds are wanted --- that is a definite demand.
The existing railways are not suited to meet that demand because of the impossibility of overcoming with present - day construction lateral oscillation which at higher speeds become so great as to be a continual menace to the safety of the train. The existing system provides no absolute factory of safety against derailment on curves due to centrifugal force. The ordinary speed of express trains is already so near the limit of safety that any addition would certainly lead to numerous disasters. The existing system may be said to have completed its evolution, sitar assorted is concerned, at least 60 years ago. But are we railway engineers to rest content with the railway speeds achieved by our grandfathers when science is pressing forward in other directions with such bewildering strides? The author does not think so. But some new method must be employed if success is to be achieved. The twin - rail must be abandoned for future high speed lines. *
*The author does not suggest for one moment that a single mile of the existing railways should be disturbed -- they will continue as now. Where and when necessary they could be Kearney used and electrified at one time and at one cost, which would not materially exceed the cost for simple catenary electrification. And this without in any way interfering with the running of the ordinary trains.
At the commencement of his work, the author realised the necessity for a system capable of high speeds and conducted an investigation into the merits and demerits of the various systems proposed. In this way his present ideas were gradually developed. In his opinion, this is the only logical way to evolve a new process, as the public is thereby saved from a surfeit of mere academic invention. Not only must a new method be better in theory, it must be better in practice while offering at least equal financial returns.
The question then is : what form our high speed railways are to take?
The essentials of a high speed railway car :---- TO BE CONTINUED.
Industrial Australian and Mining Standard November December 1922.
By Elfric Wells Chalmers Kearney.
Surface and Elevated Railways.
The desirability and usefulness of rapid transit requires no argument in its favour. It is an accepted fact that the progress and well - being of a country depend upon the facility with which ideas, commodities and persons can be exchanged or moved from place to place. It is remarkable that, in an epoch of unprecedented acceleration in other directions, so little increase in railway speeds has occured in the last 60 years. As early as 1846 a speed of 78 miles an hour was regularly attained on the Great Western Railway between Paddington and Didcot. In 1854 81 miles an hour was reached. Present day operation of steam and electric railways shows no practical improvement upon this record.
It is generally conceded by engineers that the railway in its present form has reached its maximum as regards speed, and no substantial improvement is looked for even with electricity as the motive power. This statement is made with the full knowledge of the of the important high speed electric railway test carried out between Berlin and Zossen in 190, when a maximum speed of 130 miles an hour was attained. If they did anything, these tests showed that the existing methods of track construction are unsuitable for speed in excess of 80 miles an hour. When this speed was exceeded it became necessary to re - lay the permanent way with heavier rails packed with larger ballast.
This again became unsafe at 100 miles an hour, and the addition of two guide rails was resorted to, bringing the total weight of the single track up to 460.53lb per yard. To keep the cars on the rails at the high speeds it was necessary to make them exceptionally heavy --84 metric tons each. Yet such weights offer the worst conditions at high speeds. That is a difficulty which would appear to put the standard track out of court as a practical high speed railway. It follows therefore that if there is to be any decided increase in railway speeds,we must turn our backs on present - day methods and resort to some new form of construction specialised for the accomplishment of the end view. The author came to this conclusion in 1902 before the Berlin tests proved the twin - rail track to be unsatisfactory for high speeds.
The argument behind the evolution of the Kearney High Speed Railway may be summarised as follows :--
Higher railway speeds are wanted --- that is a definite demand.
The existing railways are not suited to meet that demand because of the impossibility of overcoming with present - day construction lateral oscillation which at higher speeds become so great as to be a continual menace to the safety of the train. The existing system provides no absolute factory of safety against derailment on curves due to centrifugal force. The ordinary speed of express trains is already so near the limit of safety that any addition would certainly lead to numerous disasters. The existing system may be said to have completed its evolution, sitar assorted is concerned, at least 60 years ago. But are we railway engineers to rest content with the railway speeds achieved by our grandfathers when science is pressing forward in other directions with such bewildering strides? The author does not think so. But some new method must be employed if success is to be achieved. The twin - rail must be abandoned for future high speed lines. *
*The author does not suggest for one moment that a single mile of the existing railways should be disturbed -- they will continue as now. Where and when necessary they could be Kearney used and electrified at one time and at one cost, which would not materially exceed the cost for simple catenary electrification. And this without in any way interfering with the running of the ordinary trains.
At the commencement of his work, the author realised the necessity for a system capable of high speeds and conducted an investigation into the merits and demerits of the various systems proposed. In this way his present ideas were gradually developed. In his opinion, this is the only logical way to evolve a new process, as the public is thereby saved from a surfeit of mere academic invention. Not only must a new method be better in theory, it must be better in practice while offering at least equal financial returns.
The question then is : what form our high speed railways are to take?
The essentials of a high speed railway car :---- TO BE CONTINUED.
Comments
Post a Comment