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 18th, 2013, 03:17 PM   #1401
China Hand
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 705
Likes (Received): 161

Quote:
Originally Posted by joseph1951
To make it possible to travel more economically at speed above 300-320 km/h you t make the train lighter and more powerful , with a smaller frontal section (i.e: Talgo Avril 380 , which is still on the drawing boards); and, hopefully it will be possible to attain 380 km/h commercial speed, but these services will be limited only to some lines.

One will have to build a train carrying 1 pax for every 500kg of weight of the train and being capable of traveling at 380 km/h consuming only 20 ~30% more than a conventional HS train traveling at 300 km/h.

But..... that's it.
What about narrowing the carriage and EMU, not the gauge, to make the train seat only 3 across? Would this reduce wind-resistance along the carriages, make the train lighter, more able to sustain 400kph economically? Can differential wheels solve osciallations using existing train-sets and railway bed?

Last edited by China Hand; February 18th, 2013 at 03:31 PM.
China Hand no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old February 18th, 2013, 10:15 PM   #1402
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,973
Likes (Received): 388

Quote:
Originally Posted by China Hand View Post
What about narrowing the carriage and EMU, not the gauge, to make the train seat only 3 across? Would this reduce wind-resistance along the carriages, make the train lighter,
It would reduce weight and wind resistance per carriage. But the weight and wind resistance per seat would be increased.
chornedsnorkack no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 19th, 2013, 07:48 AM   #1403
joseph1951
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,435
Likes (Received): 57

Quote:
Originally Posted by China Hand View Post
What about narrowing the carriage and EMU, not the gauge, to make the train seat only 3 across? Would this reduce wind-resistance along the carriages, make the train lighter, more able to sustain 400kph economically? Can differential wheels solve osciallations using existing train-sets and railway bed?
You cannot narrow the rail gauge (i.e the distance between the two rails which in China has been build in standard gauge) but you can certainly narrow the width and the height of train.

Todays chinese HSTs are 3,38 m wide whilst continental european trains are 2,92 m wide.

The frontal design (the "nose") is important for High speed but tup to a certain points. To this effect and to reduce the sonic boom caused by HSTs while entering in a tunnel the Japanese have tried everything.

However at very high speed the frontal cross section of the train count only for about 25% -30% of the air resistance. The other 70-75% of air restance is produced by gap between carriages , turbulence caused by the wheels , and also the lenght of the train, etc.

So far the most promising new generation of Very High Speed trains seems to be the Talgo Avril 380 serieries G4.

It is made of 6 articulated and motorised carriages + 6 talgo monoaxial carriages. The Talgo Avril 380 non motorises carriages are 2,9m high and 2. 9 m wide (but can also be 3,2m wide, accordfing to the internal layout of 3+2 seating).

A 200 m long Talgo Avril 380 series G4 will trasport about 700 passengers in tourist configuration (on a single deck). Its weight will be about 315 tons and the train will develop between 10.000 and 12.000 kW of power, according to the client specifications. (Up to 38 kw/t)

In the narrow version the Talgo Avril 380 series G4 intermediate carriages will be only 2,9 high and 2,9 wide therefore will have a surface of 8,4 square meters. THe CRHs are about 3,28-3,38 m wide and about 3.8 ~ 4 m in height,. therefore their frontal sections are the region of 12~13 m2.

Unfortunately the Talgo Avril 380, series G4 is still on the drawing board
, and on the drawing board every train looks good......

But at 380 km/h the Talgo Avril 380 G4 series will consume only 22-25% less energy that its competitors travelling at the same speed!

However, the Spanish Talgo Avril 380, series G4 it will carry 1 pax for every 0,4 ton of train, whilst the Chinese Zefiro 380 will carry 1 pax/0,9 ton. The 16 carriages Zefiro 380 on 16 car fomation (400m) will be 1088 tons and will carry 1336 pax, whislt the 400m Talgo 380 Series G4 will carry up 1400 pax in turist seating and will weigh 630 tons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_Zefiro



Some other links:
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talgo_AVRIL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talgo_AVRIL

The 360-380 km/h runs are useful only to make 1000 km journey under 3hours without intermediate stops, assuming that one has a 1000 km stretch of a high speed line in which the train can run constantly at 360-380.

In this case if you have a 1000 km long stretch of line you will have:
at 360 km/h speed = 166,6 minutes + acceleration and deceleratin times
at 350/h km speed = 172,4 minutes + acceleration and deceleration times
at 320 km speed 188,6 minutes + acceleration and deceleration times.
at 300 km/h speed 200 minutes + acceleration and deceleration times.

China might build some very long stretches of HSL in which you will have 2000-3000 kms of lines in which you could run some trains constantly at 350-380 km/h but - equally - you could have some very long HSLs (2000-5000 km long ) very suited for night train (with compartments with berths and beds) running at speed between 250- and 300 km/h.

For day trips, and from town centre to town centre the train is fatser that the plan only if 1000-1200 km are made in 3- 4 hours.

A high speed rail network is only part of the rail system of a nation. Rail is also good for carryng long distance passenger overnight , for intercity travelling, for short distances and for mass transit system in town and metropolis (undergoud/metro systems).

A rail system can also be extremely useful to carry over short and very long distances staple products and heavy goods, such as timber, iron, coal, wheat....
For the above reasons MOR is building lines for different uses and different commercial speeds: 160-200-250 300 and 350+ km/h.
__________________

China Hand liked this post

Last edited by joseph1951; February 19th, 2013 at 08:08 AM.
joseph1951 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 19th, 2013, 12:34 PM   #1404
hmmwv
Registered User
 
hmmwv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,391
Likes (Received): 420

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxmulder View Post
You are interpreting the data wrong. It is definitely not the consequence. A typical Chinese passenger is a student or worker traveling from a large city to his home town houndreds kms away. It is apple and oranges. Japanese data is skewed for two reasons and so is really not suitable to compare it to China. 1) It includes commuter rail numbers 2) distances in Japan are shorter because of the size of the country.

Commuter rail type of network with stations every 10km is a terrible idea for intercity travel. Commuter rail is to commute to your job every day from suburbs or close towns to a big city, they cannot substitute for intercity travel.
You are generally right in the traditional sense of the difference between "intericty" and "suburban commuter" trains. I think the confusion was initially caused by MOR for not being able to make their mind. Nowadays in China Intercity more or less means commuter train, because they run around large metropolitan areas linking satellite towns. The old intercity names such as Shanghai-Nanjing and Beijing-Tianjin is a thing of the past, the intercity name will not be used for major lines linking major cities.
__________________
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.

China Hand liked this post
hmmwv no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 19th, 2013, 01:37 PM   #1405
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,973
Likes (Received): 388

Quote:
Originally Posted by joseph1951 View Post
You cannot narrow the rail gauge (i.e the distance between the two rails which in China has been build in standard gauge) but you can certainly narrow the width and the height of train.
Causing problems like a hole between carriage floor and station platform
Quote:
Originally Posted by joseph1951 View Post

The 360-380 km/h runs are useful only to make 1000 km journey under 3hours without intermediate stops, assuming that one has a 1000 km stretch of a high speed line in which the train can run constantly at 360-380.

In this case if you have a 1000 km long stretch of line you will have:
at 360 km/h speed = 166,6 minutes + acceleration and deceleratin times
at 350/h km speed = 172,4 minutes + acceleration and deceleration times
at 320 km speed 188,6 minutes + acceleration and deceleration times.
at 300 km/h speed 200 minutes + acceleration and deceleration times.
Actual numbers:
Beijing-Shanghai - 1318 km, with at least 1 stop (Nanjing South)
at 300 km/h - 4 hours 24 minutes + 2 minutes dwell at Nanjing South +2x acceleration and deceleration gives 4:48, so 22 minutes on 2x acceleration and deceleration (or curves/limited speed stretches?)
promised at 380 km/h - 3 hours 28 minutes + unspecified dwell time + 2x acceleration and deceleration totalling 3:59, so 31 minutes on acceleration, deceleration and dwell time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by joseph1951 View Post
China might build some very long stretches of HSL in which you will have 2000-3000 kms of lines in which you could run some trains constantly at 350-380 km/h
Like the 2206 km Beijing-Shenzhen.
Wuhan-Guangzhou is known to be suitable for 350 km/h and was run at that speed before First Slowdown Campaign. What is the design quality of Beijing-Wuhan?
Quote:
Originally Posted by joseph1951 View Post
but - equally - you could have some very long HSLs (2000-5000 km long ) very suited for night train (with compartments with berths and beds) running at speed between 250- and 300 km/h.
China is not quite that big, at least counting the major centres. Longest train now seems to be 4684 km Guangzhou-Urumqi. High speed lines tend to be 5...10% shorter than the parallel low speed lines due to cutting some corners. Sure, you can extend direct trains even further, but I am not quite sure whether the demand from Kashgar justifies high speed overnight direct trains Kashgar-Guangzhou or beyond. (Unless a Khunjerab Base Tunnel were dug, then a direct train Beijing-Islamabad-Karachi may exceed 5000 km).

If, say, Beijing-Guangzhou high speed line were opened for overnight trains, should these run at 300 km/h (7:59 with limited stops), or be slowed to 250 km/h?
Quote:
Originally Posted by joseph1951 View Post
For day trips, and from town centre to town centre the train is fatser that the plan only if 1000-1200 km are made in 3- 4 hours.
I have seen some arguments here whether the applicable number in China is 4 or 5 hours.
__________________

China Hand liked this post
chornedsnorkack no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 19th, 2013, 06:05 PM   #1406
joseph1951
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,435
Likes (Received): 57

Quote:
Originally Posted by chornedsnorkack View Post
Causing problems like a hole between carriage floor and station platform

Actual numbers:
1-
Beijing-Shanghai - 1318 km, with at least 1 stop (Nanjing South)
at 300 km/h - 4 hours 24 minutes + 2 minutes dwell at Nanjing South +2x acceleration and deceleration gives 4:48, so 22 minutes on 2x acceleration and deceleration (or curves/limited speed stretches?)
promised at 380 km/h - 3 hours 28 minutes + unspecified dwell time + 2x acceleration and deceleration totalling 3:59, so 31 minutes on acceleration, deceleration and dwell time.

Like the 2206 km Beijing-Shenzhen.
Wuhan-Guangzhou is known to be suitable for 350 km/h and was run at that speed before First Slowdown Campaign. What is the design quality of Beijing-Wuhan?

2-
China is not quite that big, at least counting the major centres. Longest train now seems to be 4684 km Guangzhou-Urumqi. High speed lines tend to be 5...10% shorter than the parallel low speed lines due to cutting some corners. Sure, you can extend direct trains even further, but I am not quite sure whether the demand from Kashgar justifies high speed overnight direct trains Kashgar-Guangzhou or beyond. (Unless a Khunjerab Base Tunnel were dug, then a direct train Beijing-Islamabad-Karachi may exceed 5000 km).
3-
If, say, Beijing-Guangzhou high speed line were opened for overnight trains, should these run at 300 km/h (7:59 with limited stops), or be slowed to 250 km/h?

4-
I have seen some arguments here whether the applicable number in China is 4 or 5 hours.
1-
So running at 380 instead of 300 you might save almost 1 hour at a big cost +40 ~ 60% increase in energy halve the life of the train and double the maintenance of the train and of tracks. Is it work it?

2-
Well, 4684 km between Guangzhou-Urumqi are in the bracket of the 2000-5000 km distances I mentioned.

I think that the reason for a night train is to be able to have a dinner , relax and then sleep at leat -7 -8 hours during the night. I consider a good night train a Hotel on wheels. 7hours a 59 minutes is too short as a good night journey . You mightr make a 9-10 hours journey. People will sleep longer on the train and the trian will use less energy.

On a good night train one can confortably travel 12-13 hours and, in running at 300 km/h you can cover very long distances. (3200- 3400 km, if the train make several stops)

It could be a partial alternative to a day trip by aeroplane.

4-
Yes when I wrote that I had France SNCF theory in mind. Indeed some European HSTs have journey times up to 7~10 hours
joseph1951 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 19th, 2013, 06:22 PM   #1407
China Hand
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 705
Likes (Received): 161

Quote:
Originally Posted by joseph1951 View Post
For day trips, and from town centre to town centre the train is faster than aircraft plan only if 1000-1200 km are made in 3- 4 hours.
The Beijing-Shanghai, Shanghai-Chengdu/Kunming, Beijing-Guangzhou and Xian-Ulumuqi lines are the prime candidates for this.

I make journeys of 1250 km by plane in a time of about 5.5 to 6.5 hours door to door, depending on delays and arriving too early for a meal, etc. That's about avg for a long distance bus ride of 450 to 550 kms. By fast train I save about an hour of extra time, no need to arrive early, less checkin, don't need to preboard 30minute before departure, train stations are in the city and not kms away on the outskirts, etc.

My rough calculation, for China, is that if the trip is 1300+ km then fly. If there is a CRH on the route, take the ZHGT. If the CRH is NOT on that route then flying is best (unless you like the adventure and have two days to spend).

Flying from Xian to Shenzhen is less expensive than the train and takes half the time. You can be in Hong Kong in 6 hours once you leave your hotel in Xian, arrive in Shenzhen, take the airport CRH into town, hop on the subway, go through customs and ride the MRT. It only makes sense once you get to Wuhan and points south to train it. The G824/G821 takes 9.5 hours to get to Shenzhen. Then another hour to get to XianBei and another hour to take the MRT into HK. You are up to 11 hours or more and cheap fares of 1000 to 2000 r/t can be found if you look for them.

CRH is often MORE expensive (Business and Special Class definitely) but the leg room and casual pace make up for this and if you get into Business or Special Class you can recline your seat, sleep, and get a free meal with a tv at your seat. This class is roughly the equivalent of 1st Class on an international flight with sleeping pods. It is pricey, though. 2,500 +/- on routes that have this class.

Quote:
A rail system can also be extremely useful to carry over short and very long distances staple products and heavy goods, such as timber, iron, coal, wheat....
For the above reasons MOR is building lines for different uses and different commercial speeds: 160-200-250 300 and 350+ km/h.
If they kept the existing conventional rail and upgraded it all to 250, this would increase capacity for the more frequent stops and the cheaper lines. That would be even MORE impressive - to upgrade the entire nation to 200/250 everywhere at all of those small rural stations.

But, again, most of those trains spend all night chugging along behind a freight train at 65-80kph. To utilise that speed a solution to get around the freight will need to be found.
China Hand no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 19th, 2013, 07:20 PM   #1408
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,973
Likes (Received): 388

Quote:
Originally Posted by joseph1951 View Post
1-
So running at 380 instead of 300 you might save almost 1 hour at a big cost +40 ~ 60% increase in energy halve the life of the train and double the maintenance of the train and of tracks. Is it work it?
Wuhan-Guangzhou South
4 express trains daily, single stop at Changsha, travel times 3:39 and 3:41, departure times 9:00, 9:58, 13:51 and 14:20
All other G trains take at least 4:03.

When Wuhan-Guangzhou opened in 2009-2010, there was a large decrease in the number of air passengers.

Beijing-Shanghai
8 express trains daily, 1 or 2 stops, travel times 4:48 and 4:55 respectively. Regular hourly departures each sharp hour from 8 to 11 and 14 to 17.

There has been no noticeable effect to air passenger numbers.

If the time between 4:55 and 4:03 is a range to which passengers are sensitive... could speeding up Beijing-Shanghai express trains even to 4:30 at 320 km/h attract appreciable numbers of air passengers to express trains?
Quote:
Originally Posted by joseph1951 View Post
2-
Well, 4684 km between Guangzhou-Urumqi are in the bracket of the 2000-5000 km distances I mentioned.

I think that the reason for a night train is to be able to have a dinner , relax and then sleep at leat -7 -8 hours during the night. I consider a good night train a Hotel on wheels. 7hours a 59 minutes is too short as a good night journey . You mightr make a 9-10 hours journey. People will sleep longer on the train and the trian will use less energy.

On a good night train one can confortably travel 12-13 hours and, in running at 300 km/h you can cover very long distances. (3200- 3400 km, if the train make several stops)
Yes, but the average speed including stops would be around 270 km/h or so. Over 5000 km, this adds up to 18 hours. Which is no longer just night, but also appreciable part of the next or previous day, or both. Flying in the evening and hotel night at destination, or staying night at origin and flying in the morning, could become alternatives.
chornedsnorkack no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 19th, 2013, 10:17 PM   #1409
joseph1951
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,435
Likes (Received): 57

Quote:
Originally Posted by chornedsnorkack View Post
1-
Wuhan-Guangzhou South
4 express trains daily, single stop at Changsha, travel times 3:39 and 3:41, departure times 9:00, 9:58, 13:51 and 14:20
All other G trains take at least 4:03.

When Wuhan-Guangzhou opened in 2009-2010, there was a large decrease in the number of air passengers.

2-
Beijing-Shanghai
8 express trains daily, 1 or 2 stops, travel times 4:48 and 4:55 respectively. Regular hourly departures each sharp hour from 8 to 11 and 14 to 17.

There has been no noticeable effect to air passenger numbers.

If the time between 4:55 and 4:03 is a range to which passengers are sensitive... could speeding up Beijing-Shanghai express trains even to 4:30 at 320 km/h attract appreciable numbers of air passengers to express trains?

Yes, but the average speed including stops would be around 270 km/h or so. Over 5000 km, this adds up to 18 hours. Which is no longer just night, but also appreciable part of the next or previous day, or both. Flying in the evening and hotel night at destination, or staying night at origin and flying in the morning, could become alternatives.

1-
Only 4 express trains a day?
2-
Only 8 express trains daily with 1-2 stops? Beijing seem to have an population around 21~ 22 million people (unofficial data) and Shanghai should have around 23.7 million people. Clearly with only 8 epxresses a day there isn't a great deal of high speed raidership between the two megalopolis. Perhaps the HSTs fares are far too high for the vast majority of the population.

Just as a mere comparison the Tokyo- Osaka, the first Shinaksen built in Japan and intially for a top commercial speed of only 210 km/h carries up 412,000 passengers a day. Sections of the Paris- Lyon (Marseille) are carrying up do 15 trains /hour in each direction, and these trains are often made of 2 double decker TGVs.

Clearly, in your examples the 380 km/h top speed is not the major factors for choosong the train. Indeed they lowered to orginal top sped of 380 to 300 km/h for the very fast trains with a limited number of stops (1-2- stops) and to a max speed of 250 km/h for the other Very fas a cheaper High speed trains.

With the present technology it is far too expensive (in energy consumption and wear and tear of the infrastructure and of rolling stock) to run trains at commercial speed up to 380-400+ km/h. For instance, to carry 1050 passenger at 380 km/h you need a train with 20 MW of power. To put things into perspective a 9,6~ 10 MW Locomotive can pull a 5000 ton freight train up to 120 km/h..

Since the 1990 China has started a massive program of investments in infrastructure (motorways and rails), but it has still a long way to go to satisfy the needs of a population about to exceed 1.4 billion people.

Either China is going to buld a 300,000 - 400,000 km motorway network and provide cars to 65 -75% of its population (at an unsustainable cost) or it will have to greatly upgrade all its rail networks an rolling stock, and also it will have to construct new rail lines for domestic and international purposes, for freight and passengers transport.

A rail network is not solely made of 380 km/h HS trains.


In western Europe, where railways was invented we have quite a few small nations with very dense rail network and yet in Countries such as France, Germany, UK, Italy, Spain etc the rail experts do believe that is not yet commercially feasible to run trains in commercial revenue at 360-400 km/h. In Japan the rail engineers are in agreement with their european colleagues.

Perhaps the 360-400 km/h trains will be commrcailly feasible for very few lines in the nera future but, personally I suspect that above 320 km/h a 500-660 magleve line is more idicated than the HS train. I think that China is ideally suited for a maglev network. A maglev can be as fast, or faster, than a subonic plane although it will use only 50% of the nergy used by a plane, and to build a maglev line will cost just a little more than a conventional high sped rail...

Bejing- Shaghai by maglev in 1. 5 hours? Or Beijing - Hong -Kong by maglev in 3 hours, or less?

=========

I live in UK, and I was originally born in Italy, a small nation where a commercial speed of over 200 km/h was obtained on conventional rail in 1939. It was the ETR200 trainset which was a commercail high speed articulated light train (EMU).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FS_Class_ETR_200

The ETR200 was later upgraded and remained in service for another 50 years...


In the thirties in UK a steam passenger train exceeded 200 km/h. (The "Mallard" steam Locomotive).

Etc

On conventional routes such as Rome- Naples the EMU Ale601 reached 231 km/h in the early '60 (of the last century) and later in the late sixities/early seventies (of the last century) the EMU Ale 601 were tested up to 270 km/h, under 3000 volt DC.

Toadays train manufacturers keep producing and advertising trains "capable" of 350-380 km/h but - in daily operations - these trains are limted to top speed of 280-320 km/h.


and whilst the Chinese Velaro has reached 487 km/h thanks to the acquisition of the German technology, the German new generations of ICX will have top speed of only 249km/h.......

Apparently , according to the German DB, it is far too costly to run trains at over 250 km/h, similraly in France they keep building rail lines at 350+ km/h, but Mr Pepeys of SNCF refuses to buy and run 360 km/h AGV trains.

Last edited by joseph1951; February 20th, 2013 at 01:11 AM.
joseph1951 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 19th, 2013, 11:27 PM   #1410
Sunfuns
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Basel
Posts: 2,426
Likes (Received): 361

There are few lines in Europe which run at 320 for long stretches, but you are right that in the medium term (10-20 years) anything noticably faster than that is highly unlikely.

Germany, however, is not the best example to cite. They built some 300 km/h stretches and are constructing (very slowly) few more, but their general railway strategy has moved away from HSR. Maybe it will change in the future or maybe it will not...
Sunfuns no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 20th, 2013, 01:07 AM   #1411
joseph1951
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,435
Likes (Received): 57

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunfuns View Post
There are few lines in Europe which run at 320 for long stretches, but you are right that in the medium term (10-20 years) anything noticably faster than that is highly unlikely.

Germany, however, is not the best example to cite. They built some 300 km/h stretches and are constructing (very slowly) few more, but their general railway strategy has moved away from HSR. Maybe it will change in the future or maybe it will not...
1-
In Western Europe there are were few lines cpable of 320 km/h (or 350 km/h runs), and the 320-350 km/h stretches are quite short. On the other hand, Spain, France, Germany Italy etc are very very small Countries compared to China.

2-
Germany has a "mesh type" of rail network and a given town can often be reached via two differente lines. They have preferred to upgrade some lines to 230 km, to built some HS lines for 250-280 km/h and, so far, only 1 line for 300 km/h.

They have chosen to go "fast enough", not as fast as possible. For the far future who knows...

From the near future (in the next 5-10 years), unless there are some major technical breakthroughs or the energy production is no longer a problem:

In Europe: in 2017/2018 there will be some 320 km/h runs on the newly built TGV Tours- Bordeaux, and Bordeaux Toulouse, 320 km/h from Paris to Strasbourg, and perhaps 320 km/h from Calais to Paris (New Velaro Eurostar e320), and perhaps 320km/h from Barcellona to Madrid., and perhaps, perhaps, 320 km/h on some short stretches of the Italian HSLs

In China in the near future : MOR might well decide to increase the top speed to 320 -330km/h on some premium and profitable HSLs.

On the other hand, in China the railways transport system has made an enormous progress in a very few years, and I do not see any reason to complain because nowadays the HSL chinese trains are running "only" at 300-310 km/h!!!

A 3 fold increase on average commercial speed in more or less ten -fifteen years is not bad at all, and is no reason for complaint.
__________________

China Hand liked this post

Last edited by joseph1951; February 20th, 2013 at 09:48 PM.
joseph1951 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 20th, 2013, 05:47 AM   #1412
China Hand
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 705
Likes (Received): 161

Quote:
Originally Posted by joseph1951 View Post
A 3 fold increase on average commercial speed in more or less ten-fifteen years is not bad at all, and is no reason for complaint.
Sometimes 4-fold and on a handful of trains, 5-fold !

Yes, and trips that were 18 to 40 hours can all now be done in one day putting most of China within reach on one day's ride on the rails.

Before 1999 it took truck drivers 3 DAYS to get from Beijing to Northern Hebei or Shanxi. Winding two-lane country roads, ungraded, 30kph speeds at best. If you took the bus it took that long as well. Trains were 40kph to 60kph in 1995.

From the early 19th C. to the 21st C. in 10 years.

Not bad, at all.
China Hand no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 20th, 2013, 08:31 AM   #1413
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,973
Likes (Received): 388

Quote:
Originally Posted by joseph1951 View Post
1-
Only 4 express trains a day?
2-
Only 8 express trains daily with 1-2 stops? Beijing seem to have an population around 21~ 22 million people (unofficial data) and Shanghai should have around 23.7 million people. Clearly with only 8 epxresses a day there isn't a great deal of high speed raidership between the two megalopolis. Perhaps the HSTs fares are far too high for the vast majority of the population.

Just as a mere comparison the Tokyo- Osaka, the first Shinaksen built in Japan and intially for a top commercial speed of only 210 km/h carries up 412,000 passengers a day. Sections of the Paris- Lyon (Marseille) are carrying up do 15 trains /hour in each direction, and these trains are often made of 2 double decker TGVs.

Clearly, in your examples the 380 km/h top speed is not the major factors for choosong the train. Indeed they lowered to orginal top sped of 380 to 300 km/h for the very fast trains with a limited number of stops (1-2- stops) and to a max speed of 250 km/h for the other Very fas a cheaper High speed trains.
There are only 8 express trains Beijing-Shanghai daily - but there are also 33 non-express G trains, total 41.

These 33 have trip times 5:18 to 5:38. They do have the same top speed of 300 km/h like the expresses, but make more stops (5 to 8). They also have exact same price as the expresses.

For comparison, there are 31 express trains Tokyo-Fukuoka daily - but not a single non-express direct Shinkansen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by joseph1951 View Post
Perhaps the 360-400 km/h trains will be commrcailly feasible for very few lines in the nera future but, personally I suspect that above 320 km/h a 500-660 magleve line is more idicated than the HS train. I think that China is ideally suited for a maglev network. A maglev can be as fast, or faster, than a subonic plane although it will use only 50% of the nergy used by a plane, and to build a maglev line will cost just a little more than a conventional high sped rail...

Bejing- Shaghai by maglev in 1. 5 hours? Or Beijing - Hong -Kong by maglev in 3 hours, or less?
In Japan, Chuo Shinkansen is under construction. What they plan is top speed 505 km/h, and for the 286 km distance Tokyo-Nagoya, they hope 40 minute trip time. Meaning 429 km/h average. Still far slower than nearsonic turbofan jets, and comparable to turbopropeller planes.

This would give about 3 hours Beijing-Shanghai, and 5 hours Beijing-Guangzhou.
chornedsnorkack no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 20th, 2013, 09:39 AM   #1414
makita09
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,536
Likes (Received): 92

Quote:
Originally Posted by joseph1951 View Post

Apparently , according to the German DB, it is far too costly to run trains at over 250 km/h
No they don't think that, as evidenced by the trains that DB put on the tracks today that go faster than 250km/h.

The new ICX trains are intended for slightly slower (more stops, less high speed running etc) routes, and to avoid compliance with European specifications for high speed trains they have been limited to a top speed of 249km/h.

Your attempted ambush of Mr Pepys in France is similarly malformed.
__________________
"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 20th, 2013, 10:33 AM   #1415
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,973
Likes (Received): 388

Quote:
Originally Posted by China Hand View Post

Flying from Xian to Shenzhen is less expensive than the train and takes half the time. You can be in Hong Kong in 6 hours once you leave your hotel in Xian, arrive in Shenzhen, take the airport CRH into town, hop on the subway, go through customs and ride the MRT. It only makes sense once you get to Wuhan and points south to train it. The G824/G821 takes 9.5 hours to get to Shenzhen. Then another hour to get to XianBei and another hour to take the MRT into HK. You are up to 11 hours or more and cheap fares of 1000 to 2000 r/t can be found if you look for them.
The services to Shenzhen suck.

There is just 1 daily express train Wuhan-Shenzhen - G77, taking 4:13. All other direct G trains take 4:38 to 5:11.

Consider that Wuhan-Guangzhou is served by 4 express trains daily - G77 originating Wuhan, but also G93 from Zhengzhou, G95/G98 from Xian and G79 from Beijing. Only 1 express goes direct to Shenzhen, the others terminate at Guangzhou.

From Xian, 7 G trains daily go to Guangzhou. G98 is the 1 express train, reaching Guangzhou South in 7:40. The other 6 take 8:42 to 9:06.

The 2 daily trains which continue direct to Shenzhen are both nonexpresses, and take 9:23 and 9:34 to Shenzhen.

Since nonstop Guangzhou-Shenzhen takes 0:29 consistently, a 3 minute dwell time at Guangzhou South - would it be a good idea to make sure all expresses to Guangzhou continue direct to terminate in Shenzhen? That would be 8:12 Xian-Shenzhen, instead of 9:23.
chornedsnorkack no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 21st, 2013, 10:30 AM   #1416
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
2-
Well, 4684 km between Guangzhou-Urumqi are in the bracket of the 2000-5000 km distances I mentioned.

I think that the reason for a night train is to be able to have a dinner , relax and then sleep at leat -7 -8 hours during the night. I consider a good night train a Hotel on wheels. 7hours a 59 minutes is too short as a good night journey . You mightr make a 9-10 hours journey. People will sleep longer on the train and the trian will use less energy.

On a good night train one can confortably travel 12-13 hours and, in running at 300 km/h you can cover very long distances. (3200- 3400 km, if the train make several stops)

It could be a partial alternative to a day trip by aeroplane.
China briefly introduced long distance sleeper EMU trains from Chengdu to Beijing and Shanghai in 2011. The whole trip takes 15 hours, mostly because a lot of connecting lines were still under construction so a good chunk of the trip were limited to 160km/h. As a result the train were discontinued and replaced with a conventional 160km/h sleeper. The trip was described as very comfortable by a friend of mine who rode it, but said she'd still prefer a plane ride which is quicker and cheaper. Fast forward to today, as most of the missing links between Chengdu and Shanghai are being filled by 200-250km/h capable newly constructed lines, there are talks of the resumption and expansion of the EMU sleeper service. This notion was reinforced when MOR placed a large order (108 trainsets) of the CRH1E sleeper last September.
__________________
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 21st, 2013, 08:31 PM   #1417
PredyGr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 69
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by joseph1951 View Post
1-
So running at 380 instead of 300 you might save almost 1 hour at a big cost +40 ~ 60% increase in energy halve the life of the train and double the maintenance of the train and of tracks. Is it work it?
This is an example of a train, 200m long with 328 seats, making a 400 km trip with different average speeds.
.
Despite the notable increase in energy cost due to higher speed, the total operating costs remain largely unchanged, because of other factors having a negative trend with the increase in average speed, balancing the outcome.

I am not the author. For anyone interested, the complete report is available at UIC website. Look for "relationship between rail service operating direct costs and speed".

There are already components capable of 400kmph operation, like axle bearings, gear drives, pantographs. So, the "halve the life of the train" conclusion, from where came off.
__________________

TheZoolooMaster liked this post
PredyGr no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 22nd, 2013, 05:40 AM   #1418
Silver Swordsman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 371
Likes (Received): 101

I guess the only way for a train to feasibly run at 320+ km/h during normal operation is to have a short designed lifespan--you can easily replace the trainsets as they wear out.

The only issue of wear and tear would therefore lie with the rails and wires. Those are stationary, and will degrade much faster.
__________________
My Virtual-Model Railroad: High Speed Rail in RCT3
Project Anniversary: Click Here
Silver Swordsman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 22nd, 2013, 06:32 AM   #1419
joseph1951
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,435
Likes (Received): 57

Quote:
Originally Posted by makita09 View Post
No they don't think that, as evidenced by the trains that DB put on the tracks today that go faster than 250km/h.

1-
The new ICX trains are intended for slightly slower (more stops, less high speed running etc) routes, and to avoid compliance with European specifications for high speed trains they have been limited to a top speed of 249km/h.

.
In German speaking Countries ICE stands for Intercity-Express which is meant as Hgh Speed Trains

For high speed trains (ICEs) DB Has

ICE3 (velaro family) homogated for 330 km/h top speed and presently limited to 320 in some lines (namely Paris Strasburg)
ICE1 for 280 km/h on sme NBS and on some ABS lines, with antennae on some conventional lines
ICE 2 for 280Km/h , as above
ICE TD (Diesel( Tilting for 200 km/h and 160 km/h
ICE fElectir tilting yrain for 230 km/h
IC, ICN, Interegio fast and interregio Sprint for euning between 140/200 km/h acordin to the lines.

On the newly construced and on soem newly upgrad lines used for mixed pax and freight traffics DB runs different type of pasenger trains with top speed rangin from 200 to 250 km/h (280 for late runnings)
Only 1 Line is dedicate only to one type of DB HS Train : The Koeln /Frankfurt (up to 4% gradient.. etc)



The ICX are meant to replace the presesent ICE1 and ICE2 Espress sets (by 2025) and DB has ordered 300 of these new trains. The ICE1* have a top speed of 280 km/h The ICx between 230 a nd 249. The limit of 249 km/h instead of 250/280 km/h on soem HSL service on some NBS was chosen simply o avoid tto pay the HS path tariffs nd other UIC bureaucratic asepcts .

Please refer to the relavant article on Wiki)


ICX
From Wikipedia engl Edition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICx


ICx
In service from 2016
-

Manufacturer Siemens, Bombardier as subcontractor
Family name ICx

Number built 220 trainsets ordered (80 on option)
Formation K1n: 7 cars
K3s: 10 cars
Capacity 499 (K1n)
724 (K3s)
Operator Deutsche Bahn
Specifications
Car length 28 m
Width 2,852 mm (9 ft 4.3 in)
Maximum speed K1n 230 km/h (143 mph)
K3s 249 km/h (155 mph)[1]
Power output 1,650 kW per motor car
K1n: 4,950 kW
K3s: 8,250 kW
Power supply Overhead catenary
Electric system(s) K1n: 15 kV/16.7 Hz; 25 kV/50 Hz; 1.5 kV/DC; 3 kV/DC
K3s: 15 kV/16.7 Hz
Current collection method Pantograph
Safety system(s) ETCS, LZB, PZB
Gauge 1,435 mm (4 ft 8 1⁄2 in) Standard gauge

ICx is a Deutsche Bahn project to procure up to 300 inter-city trains to replace its existing fleets used on long-distance passenger services in Germany.[2] The first ICx electric multiple unit trainsets will replace Intercity/Eurocity rolling stock, followed by ICE 1 and ICE 2 trains by 2025.[3] The ICx trains will be used on inter-city routes where DB believes Intercity-Express trainsets specifically designed for high speed operation are not suitable.[2]



[edit] ContractOn 25 January 2010 DB named Siemens Mobility preferred bidder for the ICx contact, beating Alstom.[3] and on 9 May 2011 DB and Siemens signed a framework contract for up to 300 ICx trains to be supplied by 2030.[4] Of these, 130 were to be ordered straight away, with 90 to follow taking the value to €6bn.[4] DB also has an option to order another 80 sets.

Siemens has awarded Bombardier Transportation a framework contract to support the project, worth €1.3bn for the initial 130 trains and €2.1bn for 220. This includes aerodynamics, Flexx Eco unpowered bogies, and supplying bodyshells from its Görlitz plant with driving vehicle assembly at Hennigsdorf.[4]

It is not known whether the push to use Bombardier's bogies was an act of protectionism: - Bombardier's relevant bogie plant is in Siegen, Germany whereas Siemens' is in Graz, Austria.

Construction will start in 2013, with two pre-production trains delivered in 2016 for 14 months of trial operation.[4]

[edit] FormationThe ICx vehicles will be a mix of powered and trailer vehicles. DB plans up to 24 different train configurations.[4]

The initial order covers two types of trainset K1n seven-car 230 km/h sets with three powered vehicles to replace locomotive-hauled IC trainsets, and K3s 10-car 249 km/h trains with five power cars to replace ICE1 and ICE2 trainsets.[4] All will have a restaurant and bistro car, family area and bicycle spaces.[4]

The top speed of 249 km/h avoids the need to comply with more demanding Technical Specifications for Interoperability requirements at 250 km/h.[1]

[edit] See alsoICE 3
Siemens Velaro
[edit] External linksDer ICx - die neue DB Plattform Siemens Mobility (in German)

German InterCity of Trains (ICE) family of trains

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercity-Express



For the second patr of you post relating to my assumed sabotage of Pepys and SNCF I will reply asap.

Kind Regards

Last edited by joseph1951; February 22nd, 2013 at 08:16 PM.
joseph1951 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 22nd, 2013, 10:47 AM   #1420
skyridgeline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,523
Likes (Received): 1211

Quote:
Originally Posted by PredyGr View Post
This is an example of a train, 200m long with 328 seats, making a 400 km trip with different average speeds.
.
Despite the notable increase in energy cost due to higher speed, the total operating costs remain largely unchanged, because of other factors having a negative trend with the increase in average speed, balancing the outcome.

I am not the author. For anyone interested, the complete report is available at UIC website. Look for "relationship between rail service operating direct costs and speed".

There are already components capable of 400kmph operation, like axle bearings, gear drives, pantographs. So, the "halve the life of the train" conclusion, from where came off.

Run the trains at maximum speeds during off-peak hours. The electricity prices should be about 1/3 to 1/2 of peak hour prices. .
skyridgeline 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 04:10 PM.


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