Japanese trains be it commuter, regional or Shinkansen have a very low axle load compared to Europe and especially to North America. The success of Japanese railway and the reliability of them suggest this is one of the key factors. Axle load is also discussed in the sources about Japanese railways i could find on the web. Many improvements in Japanese railways where to keep the axle load low to an extend that they even use EMUs to transport containers.
However i haven't found a formula to calculate the effect of axle loads and speed to the wear of the track. For example if a train with 10 tons axle loads traveling at 100km/h, how will an increase of speed or axle load affect the wear on the track.
I think it increases with the square of the speed so a 200km/h train does four times the damage of a 100km/h one.
For the axle load t increases with the cubic so a 20tons trains does eight times the damage a 10ton axle load train does .
Is this correct. If somebody has the exact formula it will be very welcome.

Regards,
Railzilla

Be careful what you wish for :) Here's a formula for the cost of track wear recently quoted in a Bombardier article:

k1 * sum(Qtot ^ 3) / nz
+ k2 * sum(sqrt(Qtot ^ 2 + Yqst ^ 2)^3) / nz
+ k34 * sum(f(FvV)) / mz

with
k1: cost coefficient for track wear
k2: cost coefficient for component wear
k34: cost coefficient for rolling contact wear
Qtot: vertical axle load
Yqst: static lateral force
nz: number of axles per wagon
f(FvV) energy dissipation function for rolling contact

...which didn't really enlighten me too much. There's no way to tell which of the three components dominates. Speed's not in there, might be hidden in f(FvV).

Be careful what you wish for :) Here's a formula for the cost of track wear recently quoted in a Bombardier article:

k1 * sum(Qtot ^ 3) / nz
+ k2 * sum(sqrt(Qtot ^ 2 + Yqst ^ 2)^3) / nz
+ k34 * sum(f(FvV)) / mz

with
k1: cost coefficient for track wear
k2: cost coefficient for component wear
k34: cost coefficient for rolling contact wear
Qtot: vertical axle load
Yqst: static lateral force
nz: number of axles per wagon
f(FvV) energy dissipation function for rolling contact

...which didn't really enlighten me too much. There's no way to tell which of the three components dominates. Speed's not in there, might be hidden in f(FvV).

Ok thanks, i think it was to promote their steered bogies thus the lateral force which increase with the square of the speed. And the track cost is the cubic to the axle load interesting.:)

No wonder there is so much focus to reduce axle load in Japan as it is the dominant term.

BTW the reason i am asking for this is that the Swiss Federal Railways are going to Order double decker trains which a light tilting function. My point is that they have to pay lots of infrastructure maintenance going with so heavy trains so fast around corners. What ever smart bogies are used they are going to be rail eaters. In the long run the Japanese approach would save Billions. Just weeks ago swiss railways announced 60% more demand of money because of excessive track wear. Yet the still order SUVs on rails.:nuts:

BTW the reason i am asking for this is that the Swiss Federal Railways are going to Order double decker trains which a light tilting function. My point is that they have to pay lots of infrastructure maintenance going with so heavy trains so fast around corners. What ever smart bogies are used they are going to be rail eaters. In the long run the Japanese approach would save Billions. Just weeks ago swiss railways announced 60% more demand of money because of excessive track wear. Yet the still order SUVs on rails.:nuts:

They're not really ordering SUVs on rails. SBB has been only been buying relatively light trainsets in the last years.
A Swiss Ic2000 car has an axle load of around 12t, so they aren't exactly heavy, even by Japanese standards. The new FLIRT trainsets also set about 12t on the rails. Same for the tilting ICN trainsets.
Compare that to the max axle load of a Shinkansen, which is 17t.
I'd expect the new SBB doubledeckers to have an axle load of around 13/14t, but we'll know more about that next month.

^^
You are rigth with your notes but your axle loading are for the empty cars. Also IC2000 are only trailers where Shinkansen has all axles powered except in the driving vans. Add 2.5 tons for a fully laden car. An N700 Shinkansen has only 11.2 t axle load with full passenger capacity. It can tilt and top speed is higher than an ICN. An European version would even be lighter due to the narrower loading gauge. The E4MAX double decker is only used on some lines. It is also built to the wider Shinkansen loading gauge.
A FLIRT might be lightweight here in Switzerland but would be considered as heavy in Japan, for commuter rolling stock the axle load is around 10 tons. And a Stadler GTW has 20 tons axle load for the power container:ohno:.
The increased disruption of service due to breaking rails and other infrastructure defects and increased demand for maintenance funds speak for themselves. When S-Bahn Zürich started there where not many such incidents.

i guess one bonus of the uk having small light dmu and emu trains then

Before bashing heavy US rail cars, remember the FHA takes a different approach to all passenger rail traffic safety: it aims to make collisions survivable, hence the strong structural requirements for their rail cars.

^^
A TGV is relatively light and has a very good safety record during crashes. The problem is also if the trains are heavier you gain nothing in safety as more potential energy is involved. What you need are crash absorbers and defined crumble zones.
The point is that to travel fast the requirements on the track geometry are high, and the faster you get the more precise it needs to be. Heavy trains damage the tracks much more than light ones. Thus it is needed to realign or grind the tracks frequently. US railroads are here to transport freight. Just look at the tracks, they are never really straight and there are gaps between the short rails rails. Just listen to all that clickety clack when a train is running over it. For low speed it is all rigth but you cannot go fast over those tracks. Continuous welded rail, concrete sleepers or even slab tracks are used to provide a very good track for high speed.Conclusion it is not wise to run high speed and heavy freight on the same tracks. Germany wanted to use its high speed lines for freight during night, but the newest lines have such gradients that freight or even old generation ICE cannot run on it. Simply because it is cheaper to have separate high speed and freight tracks than to combine them.
Multiple units are indeed the best for the tracks thus we see loco hauled trains slowly disappearing. Alstom with the TGV was the last company to produce a loco hauled high speed train. The successor AGV is also a EMU.

Before bashing heavy US rail cars, remember the FHA takes a different approach to all passenger rail traffic safety: it aims to make collisions survivable, hence the strong structural requirements for their rail cars.

The FRA safety regulation based on "Crash Worthiness" is economy driven and has nothing to do with any philosophy.
Think about it, to obtain global standard of "Collision Avoidance", all tracks and train-sets within US will require to install state of the art digital in-cabin signaling system with automated train stop system(ATS), something freight operators will not comply since they own the tracks and it will be they who would have to pick up the bill for such investment.

It might economy-driven (it's pretty reasonable to think so), still it is a philosophy: make crashes survivable rather than, at exponentially increasingly costs, avoid crashes. Whether it is a good approach or not I can't exactly say, because as you pointed, the US rail network is optimized for 2-mile-long bulk freight, in non-electrified tracks.

^^
You are rigth with your notes but your axle loading are for the empty cars. Also IC2000 are only trailers where Shinkansen has all axles powered except in the driving vans. Add 2.5 tons for a fully laden car. An N700 Shinkansen has only 11.2 t axle load with full passenger capacity. It can tilt and top speed is higher than an ICN.


Do you have a few references? I've been looking for this data online and couldn't find much.


A FLIRT might be lightweight here in Switzerland but would be considered as heavy in Japan, for commuter rolling stock the axle load is around 10 tons.

Commuter rail in Japan is narrow gauge., and almost always single level. The correct comparison would be with a company like RBS, not SBB...


And a Stadler GTW has 20 tons axle load for the power container:ohno:.

And that's on purpose, to increase traction. However i think that for estimating wear more factors are involved. In the end what matters is probable weight per seat.
Using more axles to distribute weight also has a cost...



The increased disruption of service due to breaking rails and other infrastructure defects and increased demand for maintenance funds speak for themselves. When S-Bahn Zürich started there where not many such incidents.

I've been commuting to Zürich for a year and a half now. In that period I have only been affected by one infrastructure related incident. That was when the catenary came down in Dietikon. That wouldn't have been avoided with lighter trains.

SBB indeed needs more money. In my opinion they should increase the price of the GA and tickets on the most travelled sections. That would could raise a lot of money.
(For most of you who don't know what the GA is: It's a pass that allows unlimited travel on the entire swiss public transport network. It's extremely good value for money. I have such a pass because it is a lot cheaper than driving. It could even double in price and it would still be cheaper than driving...)

Do you have a few references? I've been looking for this data online and couldn't find much.

jrtr.net is a good source in general
Many manufacturers have websites in english
Wikipedia is also a good source
Data for N700 is here: http://www.japantransport.com/seminar/JRCENTRAL.pdf and yes i know it is marketing


Commuter rail in Japan is narrow gauge., and almost always single level. The correct comparison would be with a company like RBS, not SBB...

It is not really the loading gauge in Japan is similar to Europe and actually larger than in UK which uses standard gauge. Some Japanese private railways and subways also use standard gauge. More important is the use of DC traction which saves the heavy transformer, but even AC stock is lighter in Japan as 60Hz allows much smaller transformers than 16.7 Hz. And the use of shorter cars. Japanese commuter stock is only 20m long compared to Switzerlands 25 meters. If Swiss railways would use single deck 20m cars they would be in the same range like Japan. But as long as cargo trains even pass through the Bahn Tunnel and the first series of S-Bahn stock is actually a Loco hauled train maybe it just doesn't make sense to reduce axle loading. Japan switched to EMUs more than fifty years ago. And even for freight the maximum is 17 tons. Maybe they just think in longer terms. Nobody here really cares if you have to replace the track after 10,20 or 50 years.


And that's on purpose, to increase traction. However i think that for estimating wear more factors are involved. In the end what matters is probable weight per seat.
Using more axles to distribute weight also has a cost...


Thats why i started this thread. It seems Japanese favor more axles over higher axle load. The also distibute propulsion to more axles and use relative weak motors. It is a trade off between vehicle maintenance and track maintenance.


I've been commuting to Zürich for a year and a half now. In that period I have only been affected by one infrastructure related incident. That was when the catenary came down in Dietikon. That wouldn't have been avoided with lighter trains.


Other have been affected by more incidents which where mostly due to broken rails for example several incidents at Harbruecke.


SBB indeed needs more money. In my opinion they should increase the price of the GA and tickets on the most travelled sections. That would could raise a lot of money.
(For most of you who don't know what the GA is: It's a pass that allows unlimited travel on the entire swiss public transport network. It's extremely good value for money. I have such a pass because it is a lot cheaper than driving. It could even double in price and it would still be cheaper than driving...)

I agree. Single tickets are rather expensive while yearly tickets are too cheap. Actually most passengers on the crowded Zurich Bern relation use the GA. Many students live at home and travel across Switzerland every day instead of searching a flat where the study. Same for office workers and of course civil servants which have an even lower price. At the end cheap public transit leads to the same effects like cheap car travel. But for politicians it is easier to buy more trains than double the GA price. Which as you say would still be a fair price. The tender is still not decided but SBB asked for a complicated and expensive solution.:ohno:

heavier axle load allows for better freight effeciency.

Japan places much more emphasis on passanger travel.

Data for N700 is here: http://www.japantransport.com/seminar/JRCENTRAL.pdf and yes i know it is marketing

Good info, however it quotes half a ton per seat for the N700, many modern Swiss trainsets are as light. For a full 8 car train they quote 365t and 636 seats. I doubt however you could put in that many seats in an 8 car train and fit both the Swiss loading gauge and comfort standards...



It is not really the loading gauge in Japan is similar to Europe and actually larger than in UK which uses standard gauge. Some Japanese private railways and subways also use standard gauge. More important is the use of DC traction which saves the heavy transformer, but even AC stock is lighter in Japan as 60Hz allows much smaller transformers than 16.7 Hz. And the use of shorter cars. Japanese commuter stock is only 20m long compared to Switzerlands 25 meters. If Swiss railways would use single deck 20m cars they would be in the same range like Japan. But as long as cargo trains even pass through the Bahn Tunnel and the first series of S-Bahn stock is actually a Loco hauled train maybe it just doesn't make sense to reduce axle loading.

That is the big difference: Japanese commuter railroads only transport passengers. That is why I made the comparison with the RBS. The point I'm trying to make here is that the reason for the differences between the practices of the SBB and Japanese commuter rail have more to do with the environment they each operate in than an unwillingness in Switzerland to adopt best practices from elsewhere.
When you remove the constraint of having to accomodate freight Swiss railways end up buying very light trains too. The RBS is a very efficient operation.


Japan switched to EMUs more than fifty years ago. And even for freight the maximum is 17 tons. Maybe they just think in longer terms. Nobody here really cares if you have to replace the track after 10,20 or 50 years.


European railways are switching to EMUs en masse too. The Re460 is probably the last locomotive SBB passengers will every have bought. This switch is however not without its critics.
However there are two things that are very different in Europe:
- There is more freight on the rails, and the governements want to encourage rail to transport even more freight.
- Infrastructure is no longer the railway's main problem.
One could of course encourage the use of lighter trains by penalizing heavy axle loads more in the formulas used to calculate track charges. That makes sense, but would go against the aim of getting more freight on the rails. Lighter axle loads also mean that you need more locomotives to get your train over the Gotthard.



Thats why i started this thread. It seems Japanese favor more axles over higher axle load. The also distibute propulsion to more axles and use relative weak motors. It is a trade off between vehicle maintenance and track maintenance.


Looking at the formula the other poster gave I get the impression that weight distribution has a big influence. It's not so much average axle load, but having the same weight on each axle. The GTW 2/6 suddenly looks a lot less attractive.

However, replacing a Re460+IC2000 consist with a trainset with the same weight per seat, but distributed power is a good idea when it comes to reducing wear. So I don't realy agree with you that SBB is "ordering SUVs".

The tender is still not decided but SBB asked for a complicated and expensive solution.:ohno:

SBB has decided they don't want the active tilt compensation immediately yet. In stead they now are talking about fitting one trainset as such, so the technology can be tested. If it proves workable it will be retrofitted to the other sets.

You never now what might happen. Switzerland might experience an economic boom so that suddenly building more new lines becomes feasible :-)

Be careful what you wish for :) Here's a formula for the cost of track wear recently quoted in a Bombardier article:

k1 * sum(Qtot ^ 3) / nz
+ k2 * sum(sqrt(Qtot ^ 2 + Yqst ^ 2)^3) / nz
+ k34 * sum(f(FvV)) / mz

...which didn't really enlighten me too much. There's no way to tell which of the three components dominates. Speed's not in there, might be hidden in f(FvV).

One interesting aspect of this formula is the sum(Qtot^3) factor. This looks like axle load distribution having a big impact.

European railways are switching to EMUs en masse too. The Re460 is probably the last locomotive SBB passengers will every have bought. This switch is however not without its critics.
However there are two things that are very different in Europe:
- There is more freight on the rails, and the governements want to encourage rail to transport even more freight.
- Infrastructure is no longer the railway's main problem.
One could of course encourage the use of lighter trains by penalizing heavy axle loads more in the formulas used to calculate track charges. That makes sense, but would go against the aim of getting more freight on the rails. Lighter axle loads also mean that you need more locomotives to get your train over the Gotthard.


First freight loses money in Europe, IMHO as long as outdated screw couplings are used it wont change. If you calculate the damages the freight does to the track it gets even worse.
Second it is correct that the companies which do not own the track simply do not care about it. So they buy cheap raileaters instead of expensive sophisticated locos which are nicer to the track. Thats true for passenger as well as freight. So pricing should not only include tonnage but also some damage factor. There must be a benefit if better rolling stock is used.
Third freight needs a lower track standard than passenger.
So it would make sense to ban freight from the most traveled passenger corridors. Track prices are kilometer based but if you price a longer less direct route with a lower track standard is cheaper, the cargo companies will use it. It doesn't matter if a train with bulk takes a few minutes longer. Fast freight would have to use EMU or DMU just like passengers. See the M250 super cargo express form JR freight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M250_series


My opinion is that at the end taxpayer has to pick up the tab anyway. But there would be ways to reduce the cost by giving the right incentives. A part of the problem is that of course the decision makers in rail are railfans and thus often like big, heavy and fast locomotives. And even it is a Lexus Hybrid a SUV is still a SUV.

First freight loses money in Europe, IMHO as long as outdated screw couplings are used it wont change.

there are quite a few pricate freight railways in Europe at the moment. I don't think they are losing money (maybe right now because of the economy, but not structurally). And I don't think the screw couplers are that much of a disadvantage. Sure, it limits the maximum tractive effort in a train, but few freight trains in Europe operate near the limit of what the coupler will handle, and that for entirely different reasons (like siding lenghts)


... it is correct that the companies which do not own the track simply do not care about it. So they buy cheap raileaters instead of expensive sophisticated locos which are nicer to the track.


Well, there's one place in the world where the freight railways do care a lot about what their trains do to the track. That is the US, where the roads own the track, and lots of it, that carries a lot less tons/track mile than in Europe. You'd think that they would have switched to low axle loads long ago if that was the main solution to lowering track maintenance.
Remember that freight doesn't travel at high speeds. I think Japan Rail freight would be happy not having to used complicated BoBo-BoBo axle arrangments. I wouldn't be surprised that from their point of view the maximum axle load of 17t on the Japanese network is a bug, not a feature. (Notice how they build their locomotives to exactly the maximum allowed...)


Thats true for passenger as well as freight. So pricing should not only include tonnage but also some damage factor. There must be a benefit if better rolling stock is used.

It's a lot more for passenger trains. Passenger trains travel at higher speeds. Track wear increases rapidly with speed. So it makes sense to make passenger trains lower. However there are ofcourse trade offs. More axles will mean more wear also.


Fast freight would have to use EMU or DMU just like passengers. See the M250 super cargo express form JR freight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M250_series

Interesting concept. Notice how they only have two such sets though. Most of JR freight's trains are pulled by locs that eat as much rail as the infrastructure owner will allow them.... 17T is not that much lighter than 20t...


My opinion is that at the end taxpayer has to pick up the tab anyway. But there would be ways to reduce the cost by giving the right incentives. A part of the problem is that of course the decision makers in rail are railfans and thus often like big, heavy and fast locomotives. And even it is a Lexus Hybrid a SUV is still a SUV.
This is where I have to disagree strongly. At the moment there is no category of people less satisfied with the railway decision makers than the railfans. Railways keep on buying light trainsets, whereas the railfans would indeed like heave locomotives.... As I seaid elsewhere: The Re460 is the last locomotive SBB passengers bought. Come back in 20 years and you'll only see trainsets on the passengers services in Switzerland.

I'm not saying that we can't learn from the Japanese. I'm just saying that the Japanese are operating in a different environment than the Europeans, with a network build according to a different set of compromises.

there are quite a few pricate freight railways in Europe at the moment. I don't think they are losing money (maybe right now because of the economy, but not structurally). And I don't think the screw couplers are that much of a disadvantage. Sure, it limits the maximum tractive effort in a train, but few freight trains in Europe operate near the limit of what the coupler will handle, and that for entirely different reasons (like siding lenghts)

Screw coupler take twice the man power for any shunting operation, thus making car load operations ineffective. It is also more time consuming to decouple or couple screw couplers. Also it is a very dangerous job. Of course for unit trains it is not so important but as now the couplers are the limit of locomotive power. For gradients pusher or midtrain helpers are needed to not break the couplers. Again distributed power can solve the problem.


Well, there's one place in the world where the freight railways do care a lot about what their trains do to the track. That is the US, where the roads own the track, and lots of it, that carries a lot less tons/track mile than in Europe. You'd think that they would have switched to low axle loads long ago if that was the main solution to lowering track maintenance.
Remember that freight doesn't travel at high speeds. I think Japan Rail freight would be happy not having to used complicated BoBo-BoBo axle arrangments. I wouldn't be surprised that from their point of view the maximum axle load of 17t on the Japanese network is a bug, not a feature. (Notice how they build their locomotives to exactly the maximum allowed...)


US roads can live with a bad track quality. If a good track is needed Amtrak has to pay for it. Again it shows that freight and passengers shouldn't mix.



Interesting concept. Notice how they only have two such sets though. Most of JR freight's trains are pulled by locs that eat as much rail as the infrastructure owner will allow them.... 17T is not that much lighter than 20t...

Yes a locomotive needs to be as heavy as allowed to have maximum tractive effort. Thats why modern electrics actually have steel or concrete ballast. If a higher axle load is permitted like in Skandinavia they just add more ballast.
Thus axle load and other wear factor need to be penalized in the track fees.
Actually the axle load for most of Europe is 22.5t
17.0^3= 4913
22.5^3=11390.625
So a 22.5 ton axle load makes 2.31 more track damage than a 17t axle load.

As K has mentioned, axle-weight is not the only factor. It used to be that railway engineers only thought in terms of axle loads, but experience has shown otherwise. (A good example is the British Rail class 86 experience, link on wikipedia but can't access it here but easy to find, BR made 100 locos, then on the next 100 - class 86 - decided to hang the motors on the axles unsprung - caused massive unexpeted wear on the track)

Unsprung weight is also a significant factor, i.e. the proportion of the axle-load that has no suspension at all. There is also the stiffness of the suspension, and many other factors.

Depending on suspension, at any given speed one train can produce less wear on the track even though it has a higher axle load than another train, but at different speeds the advantage is reversed. It is extremely complicated.

Basically high frequency vibrations (or high impact undamped pulses, to use describe it from the other side of the coin) damage metal locally more than low frequency vibrations, even if the lower frequency vibration contain more energy. However, suspensions do not behave in a linear fashion, and become stiffer or looser depending on speed and the tuning of the dampers (the Virgin class 390 pendolinos have been re-tuned sinceit was decided they wouyld only go 125mph, as it was found tuning for 140mph provided too stiff a ride at the operational max of 125mph)

Imagine how long it would take to damage the track if you went at it with a hammer, which has an equivalent axle weight of 0.0007 tons :)

But with rubber aeroplane tires the same track would be fine to probably over 100 tons per axle, not that the sleepers and ballast would though.

The Re 6/6 loco is BoBoBo because the Ae6/6 CoCo was a rail killer, but this is only a issue on curved track. Also steering Bogies and the like are especially useful in curves. The issue with unsprung mass makes sense and i guess this is where speed comes into the equation as the forces would increase with speed. Wheel slip and spin also contribute to wear. I just wanted a relative simple formula to understand how it is working, even it is only for straight track :nuts:.

A heavy, slow moving with appropriate suspension might be easier to the track than a fast moving lighter train.:cheers:

Continuous welded rails would prevent hammering so it lasts longer than conventional track.


So at the end the only way would be to test different bogies at different speed and loading. Then make a table of the damage coefficient. This way a pricing system could be established to reduce track wear.

The worst is the track even detoriates with the time even it is not used at all.

Also, I should add, wheel maintenance is important. The rounder the wheel the less wear it causes, but if the wheel has suffered flats caused by locking during breaking then small imperfections are created in the wheel geometry, hence why modern maintenance depots now have computer controlled laser guided wheel lathes.

It must also be said that the Japanese are good at dealing with all of the elements involved.

US roads can live with a bad track quality. If a good track is needed Amtrak has to pay for it. Again it shows that freight and passengers shouldn't mix.




So it would make sense to ban freight from the most traveled passenger corridors. Track prices are kilometer based but if you price a longer less direct route with a lower track standard is cheaper, the cargo companies will use it. It doesn't matter if a train with bulk takes a few minutes longer. Fast freight would have to use EMU or DMU just like passengers. See the M250 super cargo express form JR freight.

Indeed, instead of banning freight they should cut off passenger service in inferior railways (V<140 km/h) and segregate passenger and freight. Then, build some good freeways so people can move short distances on car and divert funds mostly to high-speed segregated passenger rail, like Italy and France have been doing for a while.

Passenger and freight have very different demands for optimum railway system design and configuration, therefore they should be segregated as much as possible, for the same reason you have heavy industry parks placed not side-by-side with prime commercial office space locations.

In Europe, they should invest in more freight-only railways like Betuweroute in The Netherlands, to divert to rail freight that can be diverted to rail and freeing up space in freeways for cars.

However you do the math, grinding steel against steel(through friction) adds up to wear and tear and faster you grind and/or pushing it harder against each other the more you grind. (the biggest concern being uneven grinding)
Heat also builds up since traction is a form of friction which may resort to distortion.
Lateral force produced at corners will also distort the rail.

The reason why Japan places priority on axle load is because of the high frequency of usage averaging at around 5~10 minutes from 5AM to 12 AM for most Shinkansen lines and higher frequency for most commuter lines.

Indeed, instead of banning freight they should cut off passenger service in inferior railways (V<140 km/h) and segregate passenger and freight. Then, build some good freeways so people can move short distances on car and divert funds mostly to high-speed segregated passenger rail, like Italy and France have been doing for a while.


I'd like to know where you would put all the freeways we would need to build if we got rid of the Zürich S-Bahn, or the Paris RER...

Screw coupler take twice the man power for any shunting operation, thus making car load operations ineffective. It is also more time consuming to decouple or couple screw couplers. Also it is a very dangerous job. Of course for unit trains it is not so important but as now the couplers are the limit of locomotive power. For gradients pusher or midtrain helpers are needed to not break the couplers. Again distributed power can solve the problem.


Where do you actually get this "twice the man power" figure from? A US style coupler still requires manual intevention to connect the brake hose. The european screw coupler also has the advantage that you can push a consist with it being coupled, making things like "fly shunting" easy. You can even put a banking locomotive at the back without coupling it.
Whitnessing loco changes on the SBB I notice that one man can couple a locomotive in about a minute. Coupling all the different hoses and cables takes up most of that time. I don't think that with an AAR coupler it would be much faster.

The big advantage of the AAR coupler is its greater strength. It didn't prevent car load operations to decline in the US however...

Indeed, instead of banning freight they should cut off passenger service in inferior railways (V<140 km/h) and segregate passenger and freight. Then, build some good freeways so people can move short distances on car and divert funds mostly to high-speed segregated passenger rail, like Italy and France have been doing for a while.

I'm 99% sure that the number of people who use commuter trains in Europe every day is far greater than the number of high-speed rail users.

If the railway capacity already exists, why divert people from the railways to motorways which can't possibly handle the additional users without massive widenings? Your idea sounds a "bit" inefficient to me.

Japanese trains be it commuter, regional or Shinkansen have a very low axle load compared to Europe and especially to North America. The success of Japanese railway and the reliability of them suggest this is one of the key factors. Axle load is also discussed in the sources about Japanese railways i could find on the web. Many improvements in Japanese railways where to keep the axle load low to an extend that they even use EMUs to transport containers.
However i haven't found a formula to calculate the effect of axle loads and speed to the wear of the track. For example if a train with 10 tons axle loads traveling at 100km/h, how will an increase of speed or axle load affect the wear on the track.
I think it increases with the square of the speed so a 200km/h train does four times the damage of a 100km/h one.
For the axle load t increases with the cubic so a 20tons trains does eight times the damage a 10ton axle load train does .
Is this correct. If somebody has the exact formula it will be very welcome.

Regards,
Railzilla

:ohno:

HSR everywhere runs on continuously welded rail with axle loads of 17ton/axle or less ... preferably less than 15ton/axle.

Japan
0 series = 15,1ton/axle 200km/h (later 220km/h)
300 series = 11,1ton/axle 270km/h (1992?)
N700 = 11,17ton /axle (for the empty train?) 300km/h + 1,6ton /axle for passenger load (plus tilting)
C751(singapore metro) = 15ton/axle 80km/h
BR c395 = 11,46ton/axle 225km/h

france
TGV Atlantique = 14,8 ton/axle 300km/h (passive tilt/uncompensated cant)
TGV Duplex = 14,6ton/axle 320km/h (passive tilt/uncompensated cant)
AGC(X76500/Z27500/B81000) = 15,3ton/axle (comuter/regional emu/dmu/bi-mode)
Z21500 = 14ton/axle 200km/h (comuter)

Italy/Finland/Portugal/others
Pendulino = 13,5ton/axle 250km/h (active tilting)

Spain
Renfe s120 = 14ton/axle 250km/h
Renfe s102 = 15,3ton/axle 330km/h
Renfe s103 = 13ton/axle 350km/h


the sweetspot between traction and track wear seems to be somewhere in between 13ton and 17ton ... and one always need to take into acount the passengers weight (most train weights are measured empty).

Where do you actually get this "twice the man power" figure from? A US style coupler still requires manual intevention to connect the brake hose. The european screw coupler also has the advantage that you can push a consist with it being coupled, making things like "fly shunting" easy. You can even put a banking locomotive at the back without coupling it.
Whitnessing loco changes on the SBB I notice that one man can couple a locomotive in about a minute. Coupling all the different hoses and cables takes up most of that time. I don't think that with an AAR coupler it would be much faster.

The big advantage of the AAR coupler is its greater strength. It didn't prevent car load operations to decline in the US however...

http://www.railfaneurope.net/pix/pt/diesel/1900/Barreiro/Barr_312.jpg

http://www.railfaneurope.net/pix/pt/diesel/1900/Barreiro/Barr_319.jpg

http://www.railfaneurope.net/pix/pt/diesel/1900/Barreiro/Barr_331.jpg

http://www.railfaneurope.net/pix/pt/diesel/1900/Barreiro/Barr_329.jpg

http://www.railfaneurope.net/pix/pt/electric/5600/5620-5630/nik00786_web.jpg

http://www.railfaneurope.net/pix/pt/electric/5600/misc/5600lol.jpg


People tend to make direct comparisons between things where theres nothing to compare directly.


European trains are neither THE TGV and neither solely the chain coupling. :nuts:

EMU/DMU in europe usually have universal shaffie/delner couplers (or any other automatic coupler) ... freight and passenger rollingstock usually have the universal chain coupling because (when coupled with buffers) it's a very EFFICIENT coupling system.

:cheers:

Indeed, instead of banning freight they should cut off passenger service in inferior railways (V<140 km/h) and segregate passenger and freight. Then, build some good freeways so people can move short distances on car and divert funds mostly to high-speed segregated passenger rail, like Italy and France have been doing for a while.

Passenger and freight have very different demands for optimum railway system design and configuration, therefore they should be segregated as much as possible, for the same reason you have heavy industry parks placed not side-by-side with prime commercial office space locations.

In Europe, they should invest in more freight-only railways like Betuweroute in The Netherlands, to divert to rail freight that can be diverted to rail and freeing up space in freeways for cars.

Freight and passenger traffic can operate in the same route without much hassle ... if a route allows 100/160 km/h running and is not completelly saturated then theres no problem at all. :ohno:

Over here they are building the 3rd highway and the 3rd direct railway between our bigger cities (the entire 500km long corridor wich they serve has less than half the population of NYC alone) ... passenger traffic doesn't benefit in any way from being thrown into the road. :ohno:

The betuwe is an exception ... it's the freight only link between one of europe biggest ports and the interland wich it serves ... just a small freight bipass and nothing more.

I'd like to know where you would put all the freeways we would need to build if we got rid of the Zürich S-Bahn, or the Paris RER...

Exactly ... here our comuter routes have between 100k and 300k daily passengers (k= thousands) ... throw them into the roads ??? the 4/6 lane freeways already have their own 100k /200k daily vehicles (and a lot of buses use them). :nuts:

Before bashing heavy US rail cars, remember the FHA takes a different approach to all passenger rail traffic safety: it aims to make collisions survivable, hence the strong structural requirements for their rail cars.

European safety rules are directed towards survivability of the passengers and avoiding accidents ... american safety rules are directed towards the survivability of the vehicle.

:cheers:
No matter how people claim otherwise it's the truth ...

jrtr.net is a good source in general
Many manufacturers have websites in english
Wikipedia is also a good source
Data for N700 is here: http://www.japantransport.com/seminar/JRCENTRAL.pdf and yes i know it is marketing


It is not really the loading gauge in Japan is similar to Europe and actually larger than in UK which uses standard gauge. Some Japanese private railways and subways also use standard gauge. More important is the use of DC traction which saves the heavy transformer, but even AC stock is lighter in Japan as 60Hz allows much smaller transformers than 16.7 Hz. And the use of shorter cars. Japanese commuter stock is only 20m long compared to Switzerlands 25 meters.

If Swiss railways would use single deck 20m cars they would be in the same range like Japan. But as long as cargo trains even pass through the Bahn Tunnel and the first series of S-Bahn stock is actually a Loco hauled train maybe it just doesn't make sense to reduce axle loading.

Swiss s-bahn are not the only kind of comuter trains around europe ...

Japan switched to EMUs more than fifty years ago. And even for freight the maximum is 17 tons. Maybe they just think in longer terms.

Narrow gauge cant cope with higher axleloads ... too much lateral forces and you derail unless you have extra tight maintenance control ... wich in the end eats up any advantage the lightweight/cheaper advantage the narrow gauge could have had in the first place. :nuts:

And by the way ... around here (PT) we switched to EMU's around ... 1926(?)

Nobody here really cares if you have to replace the track after 10,20 or 50 years.

Thats why i started this thread. It seems Japanese favor more axles over higher axle load. The also distibute propulsion to more axles and use relative weak motors. It is a trade off between vehicle maintenance and track maintenance.

Railways are everithing about "evolution" and strikes of luck (also called revolution) ...

Other have been affected by more incidents which where mostly due to broken rails for example several incidents at Harbruecke.

I agree. Single tickets are rather expensive while yearly tickets are too cheap. Actually most passengers on the crowded Zurich Bern relation use the GA. Many students live at home and travel across Switzerland every day instead of searching a flat where the study. Same for office workers and of course civil servants which have an even lower price. At the end cheap public transit leads to the same effects like cheap car travel. But for politicians it is easier to buy more trains than double the GA price. Which as you say would still be a fair price. The tender is still not decided but SBB asked for a complicated and expensive solution.:ohno:

Here (portugal) we have 20m long 1500vDC comuter trains since the 20's ... and our narrow gauge is the same size of the UK broad gauge ... so your point is ???

:lol:


In fact the loading gauge in the japanese 3'6" gauge is a bad thing ... it prevents them from using one of the advantages of the cant ...

Italians , Germans , French , british and Ameircans used to run their express trains at 180km/h as early as the 30's ... Japanese were always limited by the gauge issue.

So while everyone else just "evolved" what they already had (160/180km/h in express trains) the japanese were forced to make a revolution in their railways ... on the other hand everyone was forced to revolutionize their comuter trains (from steam to electrics in the 20's)... japanse railways just evolved theirs like everyone else. :cheers:

First freight loses money in Europe, IMHO as long as outdated screw couplings are used it wont change. If you calculate the damages the freight does to the track it gets even worse.
Second it is correct that the companies which do not own the track simply do not care about it. So they buy cheap raileaters instead of expensive sophisticated locos which are nicer to the track. Thats true for passenger as well as freight. So pricing should not only include tonnage but also some damage factor. There must be a benefit if better rolling stock is used.
Third freight needs a lower track standard than passenger.
So it would make sense to ban freight from the most traveled passenger corridors. Track prices are kilometer based but if you price a longer less direct route with a lower track standard is cheaper, the cargo companies will use it. It doesn't matter if a train with bulk takes a few minutes longer. Fast freight would have to use EMU or DMU just like passengers. See the M250 super cargo express form JR freight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M250_series


My opinion is that at the end taxpayer has to pick up the tab anyway. But there would be ways to reduce the cost by giving the right incentives. A part of the problem is that of course the decision makers in rail are railfans and thus often like big, heavy and fast locomotives. And even it is a Lexus Hybrid a SUV is still a SUV.

Magic formula number one = for freight you need sturdy track (capable of servicing freight above 20ton/axle) and locomotives HEAVY enough to put the power into the rails ... so we end up with 20/22,5/25/30 ton/axle locomotives with 300/450/600 Kn of tractive effort in europe/USA ... if japan doesn't manage to cope with such numbers then it's not particularly because of any flaw in european/american railways (south african railways have such heavy rails and uses the same gauge as conventional japanese railways). :cheers:

Magic formula number two = high speed trains use light axle load and raw power (good acceleration) and very little unsprung weight (for stability at high speeds) ... then enters cant , loose allowed cant deficiencies in curves and tilting (for aditional extra speed) ... the only interest in axle load per se is in having the most HIGH axle load that still allows the train to use (and should I say ABUSE) that same cant allowance (and thus the 13/15 ton/axle).

What matters in the end is that (at least for most of european rail operators) both definitions are compatible with one another ... you can have 25ton/axle freight and 250km/h passenger trains running in a daily basis in the same tracks with a minimum bump in maintenance costs ...

offtopic: having MORE axles running over a rail is never a good thing ... the tear and wear is always there ... so decreasing the number of axles to the maximum is always a good thing. :bash:

:ohno:
HSR everywhere runs on continuously welded rail with axle loads of 17ton/axle or less ... preferably less than 15ton/axle.
Japan
0 series = 15,1ton/axle 200km/h (later 220km/h)
300 series = 11,1ton/axle 270km/h (1992?)
N700 = 11,17ton /axle (for the empty train?) 300km/h + 1,6ton /axle for passenger load (plus tilting)
C751(singapore metro) = 15ton/axle 80km/h
BR c395 = 11,46ton/axle 225km/h
france
TGV Atlantique = 14,8 ton/axle 300km/h (passive tilt/uncompensated cant)
TGV Duplex = 14,6ton/axle 320km/h (passive tilt/uncompensated cant)
AGC(X76500/Z27500/B81000) = 15,3ton/axle (comuter/regional emu/dmu/bi-mode)
Z21500 = 14ton/axle 200km/h (comuter)

Italy/Finland/Portugal/others
Pendulino = 13,5ton/axle 250km/h (active tilting)
Spain
Renfe s120 = 14ton/axle 250km/h
Renfe s102 = 15,3ton/axle 330km/h
Renfe s103 = 13ton/axle 350km/h
the sweetspot between traction and track wear seems to be somewhere in between 13ton and 17ton ... and one always need to take into acount the passengers weight (most train weights are measured empty).

These comparisons are very misleading since the TGV and the RENFE s102/s103 are lovomotive push-pull that have the engine/motor in the front and rear with trailers in between therefore the weight distribution is completely offset compared to actual EMUs with much more even weight distribution.

High axle load on any single axle will result in higher wear and tear and since traction is developed on these axles the wear and tear would be worse.

These comparisons are very misleading since the TGV and the RENFE s102/s103 are lovomotive push-pull that have the engine/motor in the front and rear with trailers in between therefore the weight distribution is completely offset compared to actual EMUs with much more even weight distribution.

High axle load on any single axle will result in higher wear and tear and since traction is developed on these axles the wear and tear would be worse.

Not quite right


You people are ALWAYS confusing EMU and motorcoach ...



Series 103 is a siemens velaro wich is a m+r+m+r+m+r+m+r EMU (each m unit is a motored car/motorcoach and each r unit has electric components in a otherwise CONVENTIONAL coach)

Series 102 are lightweight talgo trainsets coupled between 2 TRAXX electric locomotives ... so ... yeah ... conventional top'n'tail.

TGV trainsets are push-pull or top'n'tail lightweight trainsets ... 3 cars per trainset actually wich is amusing ... locomotive + articulated set + locomotive.


Your main error is precisely when you Assume THAT BECAUSE THEY HAVE traction motors in the extremes that they are indeed "conventional" rolingstock ... actually that principle only aplies to the electric talgo HSR trainsets.


TGV trainsets have distributed weight and quite paradoxaly have the same exact weight/load in each bogie ... because instead of the "conventional" 2 bogies per each 25m/27m long coach only have 1 in each 18m long coach (much more space between wheelsets) ... 8/12 motored axles and 14/18 unpowered axles in each TGV (the atlantique have 22 unpowered axles).
Thats purely because the tecnologies available to the french in the 80's only allowed for a massivelly huge transformer so they ended up with 2 powered axles in a transformer motorcoach (a.K.a. locomotive) ... the original idea was for them to have gas turbine and the 2nd bogie would already be shared (at that time it was deemed unsafe to put passengers in the 1st coach in european railways) ... newer 200+ trains in france/spain are just plain COMUTER/REGIONAL trainsets ... and the TGV has gone back to its origins and became the AGV.


On the other hand the ICE1 was a purellly UBER-POWERED "conventional" HST ... two "evolved" DB120 locomotives and a rack of 14 conventional coaches in betweeen ... ICE2 was a pair of half sets with 1 locomotive and 7 conventional coaches ... the last one having a nose/cabin similar to the locomotive (same principle was followed by swedish X2000) ... and only after some litigations were they allowed to run above 160km/h with the coach in front of the train (british rail just went with the DVT - a end car with no passengers) ... ICE3 was then again a development based on the italian pendolinos (wich were the 1st actual HSR trainsets allowed at more than 160/200km/h with passengers in the first coach) ... and here in the ICE3 a key factor was the tecnological development of transformers small enough to be placed undefloor.

You seem to neglect almost the entire lineage of european electric/turbine/diesel HST's dating from way back as 1900. :cheers:



Japanese shinkansen are indeed based on the principle of conventional EMU rolingstock ... wich makes them not very different from about 1/2 the european trains around. :nuts:

my god

http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/9629/prsentationshinkansen.jpg (http://img834.imageshack.us/i/prsentationshinkansen.jpg/)

Double deck trains with only 17 tonnes per axle (maximum "authorized" in Europe) in a articulated train (18m cars), when others have 15 tonnes with 1 deck in no-articulated trains (24m cars). That's french technology ! :cheers: