tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6609536178570975752.post2575510600314357442..comments2024-01-12T00:32:20.149-08:00Comments on The Overhead Wire: Trade Ya a Rail Line for a RunwayPantograph Trolleypolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17833159138533550544noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6609536178570975752.post-22336846264682834962008-09-29T09:54:00.000-07:002008-09-29T09:54:00.000-07:00James has this to say:"Comparing air with rail it ...James has this to say:<BR/><BR/>"Comparing air with rail it would seem at first glance that aircraft have smaller fixed installation requirements - after all, they just need an airport at each end. One has to consider the vast quantity of land - and buildings - required for airports, however. Runway 26L/08R at Vancouver International Airport is 9940 x 200 feet x 1.5 feet (runway depth estimated) - 3 million cubic feet - and cost $100 million. The volume of a concrete railway sleeper is about 0.1 m3, or about 3 cubic feet. Thus the volume of concrete in one runway is equal to the volume of concrete in a million concrete railway sleepers, which are normally spaced at 650 to 760 mm intervals. A million sleepers would thus support 650 km of railway track. Interestingly, with the railway there is an alternative: composite ties, which can be (and are) made of recycled post-consumer waste plastic. I don't think that's an option for aircraft runways. "<BR/><BR/>http://strickland.ca/efficiency.htmlnjhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15278712220761294549noreply@blogger.com