Sunday, January 11, 2009

Trainos ultrarapide in le Regno Unite, lor problemas, e le compromissos que produce solutiones


(Languages of this post: Interlingua, English)


Quando in 1984 le governamentos britannic e francese decideva autorisar le construction de un tunnel sub le Manica, le connexion inter le costa e London sublevava problemas difficile. Pro augmentar al maximo le utilitate del tunnel, il esseva necesse usar trainos rapide, como le Trainos de Grande Velocitate usate per le franceses.

Ma le lineas de ferrovia inter Folkestone e London non permitteva le operation ultrarapide del trainos. Assi, le chefes del ferrovias britannic optava pro construer un linea toto nove, capace de permitter traffico intensive rapidissime--un decision rational que totevia creava problemas difficile a solver.

Desde le initiio, le governamento britannic, conforme a su preferentias pro le economia del mercato, habeva refusate subsidiar le construction del tunnel e de su lineas connective.

Totevia, le construction de un nove linea augmentarea multo le costos, e le problema era complicate per questiones de compensation a personas qui timeva problemas de strepito presso lor casas, rendente los quasi invendibile. Il anque habeva preoccupationes concernente le preservation del ambiente de un region assatis pictoresc.

Le direction del British Rail considerava quatro lineas alternative, ma le publico los protestava omnes. Quasi omne personas concedeva le utilitate de construer un nove linea, ma omnes non voleva que illo esseva situate vecin a lor habitationes.

Demonstratores in London diceva que a un distantia de 25 (venti cinque) metros le ruito producite per le nove trainos esserea tan grande como illo de un jumbojet e que le sono del TGVs francese, al velocitate maxime de 270 km/h, attingerea 105 decibeles, sufficiente pro causar dolor physic al aures human.

Le ingenieros respondeva que un tal nivello de sono es producite solmente per imperfectiones mechanic combinate con le operation ultrarapide del trainos. Le nove TGVs es minus ruitose, e isto, combinate con le limitation del velocitate a 224 (duo centos vinti quatro) km/h in Grande Britannia, producerea un sono maxime de solmente 93 (novante tres) decibeles. E al velocitate planificate pro iste trainos in Anglaterra (solmente 200 [duo centos] km/h), iste trainos producerea solmente 91 (novanta un) decibeles, le mesmo nivello de ruito producite per trainos normal interurban.

In responsa al preoccupationes del protestatores, British Rail optava finalmente pro un nove route, intendite pro reducer al minimo le deterioration del ambiente presso le trainos.

Le linea passarea a solmente 38 (trenta octo) km al superficie, 32 (trenta duo) km in trencheas, e 38 km in diverse tunnels, includente un longe tunnel de 19 (dece nove) km desde Swanley usque al termino Waterloo in London, con un altere tunnel 8,8 km longe pro un extension al termino King's Cross.

Le velocitate maxime permittite in le tunnels esserea 200 (duo centos) km e 224 (duo centos vinti quatro) km/h in le altere sectiones. On calcula que le tempore de viagiar ab le costa a King's Cross, que hodie occupa 70 (septanta) minutas, sera reducite a 40 (quaranta) minutas.

Assi on ha solvite le problemas technic e ambiental augmentante le costo a forsan 1,8 billiones de libras sterling, in loco del 1,2 billiones previdite originalmente. Mesmo le "Daily Telegraph", un jornal politicamente conservative, crede que iste augmento forsan necessitara alicun subvention governmental.

---

Ultrarapid Trains in the United Kingdom, their Problems, and the Compromises that Produce Solutions

When in 1984 the British and French governments decided to authorize the construction of a tunnel under the English Channel, the connection between the coast and London raised difficult problems. To increase the use of the tunnel to its maximum, it was necessary to use fast trains, like the French TGVs (trains of great velocity).

But the railroad lines between Folkestone and London did not allow the ultrarapid operation of trains. So the CEOs (chief executive officers) of the British railroads decided to construct a completely new line, capable of allowing very rapid and intensive traffic--a a rational decision that still created problems that were difficult/hard to solve/resolve.

From the beginning, the British government, in accordance with its preference for market economics, had refused to subsidize the construction of the tunnel and its connecting lines.

Still, the construction of a new line would greatly increase the costs, and the problem was complicated by questions of compensation to people who feared problems of noise near their homes, rendering them almost unsalable. There also were worries about the preservation of the environment in such a picturesque region.

The management of British Rail considered four alternative lines, but the public protested against all of them. Almost all the people agreed about the usefulness of constructing a new line, but they all did not want it near their own homes.

Demonstrators in London said that at a distance of twenty-five meters, the noise produced by the new trains would be as great as a jumbojet's and that the sound of the French TGVs, at a maximum speed of 270 (two hundred seventy) kilometers per/an hour, reached 105 decibels, enough to cause physical pain to human ears.

The engineers responded that such a level of sound is produced only by mechanical imperfections combined with the ultrarapid operation of the trains. The new TGVs are less noisy, and this, combined with a speed limit of 224 (two hundred twenty-four) miles per hour in Great Britain, would produce a maximum sound level of only 93 (ninety-three) decibels. And at the speed planed for these trains in England (only 200 [two hundred] kilometers per hour), these trains would produce only 92 (ninety-one) decibels, the same level of noise produced by normal interurban trains.

In response to the concerns of the protesters, British Rail finally (opted for)/(chose) a new route, intended to reduce to a minimum any environmental deterioration near the trains.

The line would travel only 38 (thirty-eight) kilometers on the surface 32 (thirty-two) kilometers in trenches, and 38 (thirty-eight) kilometers in different tunnels, including a long one 19 (nineteen) kilometers in length from Swanley to the Waterloo terminal in London, with another tunnel of 8.8 (eight point eight) kilometers long for an extension to the King's Cross terminal.

The maximum speed allowed in the tunnels would be 200 (two hundred) kilometers and 224 (two hundred twenty-four) kilometers per/an hour in the other sections. Estimates are that the travel time from the coast to King's Cross, which now takes 70 (seventy) minutes, will be reduced to 40 (forty).

The technical and environmental problems have thus been solved by increasing the cost to perhaps 1.8 (one point eight) billions of pounds sterling instead of the 1.2 (one point two) billions previously estimated. Even the "Daily Telegraph, a politically conservative newspaper, believes that this increase will perhaps make necessary some subsidy on the part of the government.

No comments: