Up_Tilt_390
Member
- Joined
- 10 Oct 2015
- Messages
- 923
This primarily applies to rapid transit systems, but the same principles I will bring up can apply to other railway networks, including those in the United Kingdom. But by landscape types, I mean such as forests, deserts, plains, mountains, flat green areas etc.
Firstly, let's do a bit of comparing. I've noticed that the rapid transit systems (aka. metros/subways) in cities like London and New York City, have a considerable amount of the infrastructure underground with all kinds of stations and tunnels, which sometimes run separately in the case of the latter. Yes, London Underground is slightly more above ground, but the point is that the rapid transit systems in these cities, which are located in green areas such as valleys or plains (I don't exactly which) have a considerable amount of underground infrastructure.
By contrast, the Dubai Metro is predominantly elevated above street level, with only a handful of stations even running underground, and often these are large single-bore tunnels that don't run on for anywhere near the distances. Unlike London and New York City, Dubai is built on very sandy desert landscape, and unlike rocks such as limestone, I can't imagine sand holding up very well against digging beneath the surface unless there's some sort of pre-fabricated tube placed ahead to minimise the settlement. But I'm acting on assumption.
This doesn't just apply to rapid transit, tunnels are built outside big cities too. But the same principles will apply. But in the case of national networks the case of electrification also comes up. I've never seen a railway with overhead lines in the middle of a desert (granted some of these barren landscapes won't have much hospitable places to reach out too), but they're the primary source of electrification for railways in countryside for example. Ultimately the question is whether the types of landscapes will affect the building of railway infrastructure in the case of tunnels, bridges and electrification, and if so why this may be the case.
I understand that somewhere like New York is a more densely packed and bustling metropolis than the less densely populated Dubai with more open areas, but are these the only reasons why New York Subway is primarily underground while Dubai Metro is primarily overground? Do populated and hospitable areas also effect whether a railway will reach these areas, hence why electrified railways may be less common in deserts than countrysides?
I may have worded it badly, but if you can just about understand what I'm getting it, do please give your best answer if you can. Thanks.
Firstly, let's do a bit of comparing. I've noticed that the rapid transit systems (aka. metros/subways) in cities like London and New York City, have a considerable amount of the infrastructure underground with all kinds of stations and tunnels, which sometimes run separately in the case of the latter. Yes, London Underground is slightly more above ground, but the point is that the rapid transit systems in these cities, which are located in green areas such as valleys or plains (I don't exactly which) have a considerable amount of underground infrastructure.
By contrast, the Dubai Metro is predominantly elevated above street level, with only a handful of stations even running underground, and often these are large single-bore tunnels that don't run on for anywhere near the distances. Unlike London and New York City, Dubai is built on very sandy desert landscape, and unlike rocks such as limestone, I can't imagine sand holding up very well against digging beneath the surface unless there's some sort of pre-fabricated tube placed ahead to minimise the settlement. But I'm acting on assumption.
This doesn't just apply to rapid transit, tunnels are built outside big cities too. But the same principles will apply. But in the case of national networks the case of electrification also comes up. I've never seen a railway with overhead lines in the middle of a desert (granted some of these barren landscapes won't have much hospitable places to reach out too), but they're the primary source of electrification for railways in countryside for example. Ultimately the question is whether the types of landscapes will affect the building of railway infrastructure in the case of tunnels, bridges and electrification, and if so why this may be the case.
I understand that somewhere like New York is a more densely packed and bustling metropolis than the less densely populated Dubai with more open areas, but are these the only reasons why New York Subway is primarily underground while Dubai Metro is primarily overground? Do populated and hospitable areas also effect whether a railway will reach these areas, hence why electrified railways may be less common in deserts than countrysides?
I may have worded it badly, but if you can just about understand what I'm getting it, do please give your best answer if you can. Thanks.