daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Railways

Railways (Inter)national commuter and freight trains



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old February 9th, 2013, 06:03 PM   #1361
Peloso
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Away from Macaronia
Posts: 1,175
Likes (Received): 247

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver Swordsman View Post
How many engineers and how many people a country has is irrelevant to how fast components wear down and need replacing. A large number of engineers means one can tackle technological challenges faster (like catching up 40+ years of technology in five years), but it does not grant China a "cheat code" for having to replace wheels, rails, and wires without cost.

Unless China can find a new kind of technology blah blah
All of this may be true but it has nothing to do with Pansori's quote my comment was directed at.
__________________
Save Italy, fight the Macaroni
E(xtinction)=m(afia)c(reeps)˛
Peloso no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old February 10th, 2013, 07:53 AM   #1362
Silly_Walks
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,977
Likes (Received): 836

Quote:
Originally Posted by makita09 View Post
The germans or dutch have developed a metal that resists the type of wear that leads to stress fractures, increasing longevity 3-fold and reducing the need re-grind the railhead. I don't remember much detail - it was an article in rail professional or something.

Basically, with current materials 320km/h seems an economic maximum, but the future will not have todays materials, so there is no such limit necessarily in the future.
But then you are still left with the exponentially increasing energy consumption at higher speeds.
Silly_Walks no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2013, 09:55 AM   #1363
hmmwv
Registered User
 
hmmwv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,391
Likes (Received): 420

Quote:
Originally Posted by joseph1951 View Post
1-
That's right.

2-
320km/h on the new section Paris Gare de l'Est Strasbourg. 270-300 km/h in the other lines.

The new HSL section Tours - Bordeaux will be built for 350 km/h but, initially, the top commercial speed will be limited to 320 km/h.

A couple of yers ago Mr Pepys, CEO of SNCF stated pubblicly in London that the problem is NOT building trains capable of 400 km/h in commercial revenue, but the problem is to run these trains economically at 400 km/h.

Mr Pepys wants a 360-400 km/h per hour VHS train capable of carryng more passengers than the TGV Duplex with a pax/weight ratio of 1 pax/400 kg of train, and capable of running at 360-400 km/h with an energy consumption of a TGV Duplex running only at 300 km/h.

So far, in Europe, only the Talgo Avril 380 series G4 seems, second generation, is capable of achieving some of these goals. But this trains is still on the drawing board.

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talgo_AVRIL


Also these Very High Speed trains should be very gently on the infrastructure.


At present these technical specifications are not been achieved. However, if the cost of running trains at 360 - 400 + km/h is not important, nobody will prevent the Chinese from running trains on commercial services at 360 - 400+ km/h.

Personally I suspect that in the future (2020?), in Europe, but only on a limited amount of HS lines, there will be some trains running at 350 -380 km/h.


China is very different from Europe and 350-380+ km/h runnings will be more jusitified, but non necessarily in the next couple of years.
Very good information about the TGV, I think CRH initially wanted the train to run at 380km/h mainly to attract customers from the airline industry, after all being able to travel from Beijing to Shanghai is great marketing. However now it's proven that the network is already well utilized and MOR doesn't have to go out of its ways to attract passengers. Most of the passengers on the line do not ride end to end, so it's a bit pointless to require 380km/h speed, a better time table with better coverage of stops is a better way to serve more people. I do see a market for those trains though, for example the new Urumqi-Lanzhou line where the train passes hundreds of kilometers of empty deserts without having to stop. On lines such as Beijing-Shanghai or Beijing-Guangzhou I think it's doable to run a very limited number of almost direct trains daily with 380km/h speed to serve people who really need to be there fast.
__________________
The building under construction next to Shanghai Tower is Oriental Financial Center. The "plot" next to Jinmao is reserved green belt and no skyscraper will be built there.
hmmwv no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2013, 10:40 AM   #1364
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,975
Likes (Received): 388

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silly_Walks View Post
But then you are still left with the exponentially increasing energy consumption at higher speeds.
False. The energy consumption grows with square of speed, not exponentially.
chornedsnorkack no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2013, 01:42 PM   #1365
makita09
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,536
Likes (Received): 92

Epic math fail.

Silly_Walks - yes energy consumption increases, but not to the extent that it alone would make the increased speed uneconomical. 300 vs 350km/h = less than 20% increase in energy cost. This will equate to an overall increase of less than 10% operational cost, easily absorbed by fares justified by the time saving.
__________________
"There is no problem so bad that you can't make it worse" - Chris Hadfield
makita09 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2013, 03:02 PM   #1366
Silly_Walks
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,977
Likes (Received): 836

Quote:
Originally Posted by chornedsnorkack View Post
False. The energy consumption grows with square of speed, not exponentially.
lol yeah that's the one i meant. Not epic math fail, epic typing fail.
Silly_Walks no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2013, 05:41 PM   #1367
makita09
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,536
Likes (Received): 92

Lol, doesn't really matter, point is it isn't linear, which was your point.
__________________
"There is no problem so bad that you can't make it worse" - Chris Hadfield
makita09 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 11th, 2013, 08:59 AM   #1368
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,975
Likes (Received): 388

Quote:
Originally Posted by makita09 View Post
Epic math fail.

Silly_Walks - yes energy consumption increases, but not to the extent that it alone would make the increased speed uneconomical. 300 vs 350km/h = less than 20% increase in energy cost.
No. The square of speed is increased by 36 %.
chornedsnorkack no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 11th, 2013, 05:48 PM   #1369
makita09
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,536
Likes (Received): 92

OK, embarrassed - Will not try to do such arithmetic in my head from now on.....

So that would be around 15-20% increase in overall cost then, hmmmm.
__________________
"There is no problem so bad that you can't make it worse" - Chris Hadfield
makita09 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 11th, 2013, 07:38 PM   #1370
Silly_Walks
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,977
Likes (Received): 836

Quote:
Originally Posted by makita09 View Post
OK, embarrassed - Will not try to do such arithmetic in my head from now on.....

So that would be around 15-20% increase in overall cost then, hmmmm.
Maybe some more humility and respect towards other forummers will allow you to increase the positive influence your presence has here
Silly_Walks no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 12th, 2013, 01:25 AM   #1371
PredyGr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 69
Likes (Received): 4

For those who are interested for the relation between speed and operating costs, for rail services, i suggest you to visit UIC website. There you can find some pretty interesting reports in pdf format on the above mentioned topic and on energy consumption and emissions in high speed rail operations.
PredyGr no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 12th, 2013, 02:11 AM   #1372
joseph1951
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,435
Likes (Received): 57

Quote:
Originally Posted by makita09 View Post
OK, embarrassed - Will not try to do such arithmetic in my head from now on.....
1-
So that would be around 15-20% increase in overall cost then, hmmmm.
1-
Not necessarily so. There is an increase in energy consumption, and also an increase in wear and tear, both of the rolling stock and of the infrastructure....

Also, the Chinese HSTs' are quite heavy, and the ratio pax/weight of the trains is about 1pax/ 0,9 tons, whilst the TGV duplex is about 1 pax/0,7 ton.

According to the Experts in the field, for the new genearation of HSTs this pax to weight ratio has to go further down, at around 1 pax/0,4 t.

In building a HSTs network China has done wonders. But the HSTs network is only part of the equation: China has also to improve its conventional rail network, and I am sure that the Chinese Government hasn't forgotten this task.

In order to transport efficiently, rapidly and economically almost 1,5 billion people there is a need for a modern network of metroplitan lines , and a network of conventional lines (160-200 km/h) for regional and long distance passenger and freight trains as well as a need for High Speed lines and trains.

I am sure that if they want, and if energy consuption is not a problem, the Chinese can technically run trains at 350-400 kph, but I am not sure that, at the moment, this is heir top priority.

Anyway: what's wrong with running HSTs at "only" 300-320 km/h?


In my opinon, 300-320 kmph are quite respectable top speeds.
joseph1951 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 12th, 2013, 02:32 PM   #1373
China Hand
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 705
Likes (Received): 161

Quote:
Originally Posted by joseph1951 View Post
But the HSTs network is only part of the equation: China has also to improve its conventional rail network, and I am sure that the Chinese Government hasn't forgotten this task.

In order to transport efficiently, rapidly and economically almost 1,5 billion people there is a need for a modern network of metropolitan lines , and a network of conventional lines (160-200 km/h) for regional and long distance passenger and freight trains as well as a need for High Speed lines and trains.
I took several rides the past 2 weeks and I was wondering how to increase the conventional line capacity in China. 16 to 20 car trains are the current maximum. To increase pax would require lengthening trains to 24/32 cars or loading them as double decker elevators are loaded or increasing the number of trains. To do that would require a complete re-write of the entire grid schedule, something that would take years and a super computer to accomplish.

If they upgrade ALL of the conventional lines to (160-200 km/h) that will require a complete refit of 40,000 km of track as well as an overhaul of most of the existing legacy trainsets. That would number 19,431 locomotives and 52,130 passenger coaches to increase the whole system to that speed, but freight cars number 623,000 and some are obviously from the early 20th C. Combined lines with freight would still experience a bottleneck.

The N, K and L trains often average 66 to 72 kph, a speed
chosen for maximum fuel efficiency in a society with lots of spare time and little money. Offering cheap transport to those who need it is great, but those speeds are literally from the 19th C. and need to be greatly improved. If the cheapest seats on N, K or L sets could be on trains traveling at an average of 140+kph (a clean double) then throughput could be increased.

This will all cost hundred's of billions more.
China Hand no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 12th, 2013, 10:27 PM   #1374
makita09
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,536
Likes (Received): 92

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silly_Walks View Post
Maybe some more humility and respect towards other forummers will allow you to increase the positive influence your presence has here
Respect? Only if you all pass a logic test or can prove you are robots from the future

I am sure it will be possible to get to 350km/h - France does 320km/h, and thats with clunky power cars and heavy axle weights (albeit far few axle passes).

But yes I agree 300km/h is perfectly good speed.
__________________
"There is no problem so bad that you can't make it worse" - Chris Hadfield
makita09 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 13th, 2013, 08:25 AM   #1375
Silver Swordsman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 371
Likes (Received): 101

Quote:
Originally Posted by joseph1951 View Post
1-

Also, the Chinese HSTs' are quite heavy, and the ratio pax/weight of the trains is about 1pax/ 0,9 tons, whilst the TGV duplex is about 1 pax/0,7 ton.


In building a HSTs network China has done wonders. But the HSTs network is only part of the equation: China has also to improve its conventional rail network, and I am sure that the Chinese Government hasn't forgotten this task.
How are the Chinese HSTs heavier than the TGV Duplex? Modern CRH380 trainsets are specifically designed to be lightweight to make 380 km/h economically feasible; unless we're focusing on the fact that CRH trains are EMUs while the Duplex is a PP model.

It seems that China has done its homework on wear and tear, and the only reason for the slowdown is electric consumption; I'd say that the 300km/h speed cap will remain until China finishes upgrading its electrical grid.
__________________
My Virtual-Model Railroad: High Speed Rail in RCT3
Project Anniversary: Click Here
Silver Swordsman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 13th, 2013, 01:03 PM   #1376
Sopomon
Hideous and malformed
 
Sopomon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 870
Likes (Received): 153

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver Swordsman View Post
How are the Chinese HSTs heavier than the TGV Duplex?
Well the TGV carriages themselves are almost flimsily light. The weight of the locomotives, when averaged over the number of seats simply works out to ebe less than a CRH EMU.

What 's important is which one,

380A, a Shinkansen derivative is likely to be the lightest (owing to the extremely light nature of Shinkansen products as a whole (I do believe they have the world's lowest axle weight for an HST)), whereas the 380B will probably weigh a little more.
__________________
And he kicked so many rosebushes at her that eventually, Sasuke turned into a log.
Sopomon no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 13th, 2013, 02:57 PM   #1377
loefet
Registered User
 
loefet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Göteborg
Posts: 525
Likes (Received): 233

The weight of the train isn't really a good measurement to the wear of the track.
What you should be looking at is axle load, since it relates a lot more to the track wear.
High axle load means more, low gives less wear.

So even if the cars on a TGV are really light they still only have 2 wheels to distribute the weight on, which makes it so that they have a high axle load.
Shinkansen trains and their derivatives, are built to be as light, but have more axles to distribute the weight on so they will cause less track damage than a TGV, no matter how you look at it.
loefet está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old February 13th, 2013, 03:26 PM   #1378
AlexNL
Registered User
 
AlexNL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,629
Likes (Received): 537

A Thalys power car weighs in at 68 tonnes (68,000 kg). A power car has 4 axles (Bo'Bo'), meaning that the axle load is 17 tonnes.

The intermediate coaches weigh 244 tonnes (30,5 t/car), as there are 18 axles (9* Bo') supporting those coaches this means the average axle load for the coaches is 13.6 t per axle.
__________________
We are shaping the future
AlexNL no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 13th, 2013, 04:28 PM   #1379
loefet
Registered User
 
loefet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Göteborg
Posts: 525
Likes (Received): 233

Is that intermediate coaches weight loaded or empty?
Most likely empty, an N700 Shinkansen train have a loaded axle load of just 11.2 tonnes.
So a Shinkansen train does a lot less damage on the track.
loefet está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old February 13th, 2013, 09:05 PM   #1380
PredyGr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 69
Likes (Received): 4

The unsprung mass has stronger effect on the deterioration of track geometry than the axle load. If i remember correctly the effect is 10x compared to that of the axle load.

So i think the gap between PP and EMU is larger, from track friendliness point of view.

Of course the design parameters of the bogie affect the interaction between rail and wheel, so it's not an easy task to find which trainset is more gentle to the track than the other.
PredyGr no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
china

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 07:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium