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.


View Poll Results: Should the US build or improve it's HSR network?
Yes 249 89.57%
No 29 10.43%
Voters: 278. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old May 12th, 2010, 01:54 AM   #1461
SamuraiBlue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,232
Likes (Received): 195

Quote:
Originally Posted by HyperMiler View Post
One thing you notice is that efSET weigh 450 ton, at least 100 ton heavier than a typical Shinkansen model and heavier than even the base model Velaro. Why? Because it needs to meet Euro crashworthiness standard, and their first time effort is going to be inferior to their competitor's 2nd and 3rd time efforts. Both AGV and HEMU-400x weigh significantly less than efSET, making efSET uncompetitive against those.

AGV : 270 ton for 7 x 17m cars.
HEMU-400x : 414 ton for 8 x 25m cars
efSET : 450 ton for 8 x 25m cars

At with the number trick, again?

If you calculate the tonage per meter AGV is the heaviest.
AGV 270 tonnes at 119 meters =2.27 tonnes per meter
HEMU-400x 414 tonnes at 200 meters = 2.07 tonnes per meter
efSET 450 tonnes at 200 meters = 2.25 tonnes per meter

You'll have to also compare capacity as well to make a better assessment.

Last edited by SamuraiBlue; May 12th, 2010 at 02:07 AM.
SamuraiBlue no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old May 12th, 2010, 09:55 AM   #1462
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,744
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuraiBlue View Post
At with the number trick, again?

If you calculate the tonage per meter AGV is the heaviest.
AGV 270 tonnes at 119 meters =2.27 tonnes per meter
HEMU-400x 414 tonnes at 200 meters = 2.07 tonnes per meter
efSET 450 tonnes at 200 meters = 2.25 tonnes per meter

You'll have to also compare capacity as well to make a better assessment.
Indeed. The correct comparison is with an 11 car AGV. That's the version that will probably sell best in Europe.
K_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 12th, 2010, 10:08 AM   #1463
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,744
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuraiBlue View Post
Ahh, you'll have to elaborate more since it really does not make sense.
I can only read, articulated sets have less axle to divide overall weight of cart so to compensate they had to shorten the length.
As I have been saying there is nothing to brag about.
That's not about bragging. It's about understanding that all engineering is about compromises. The TGV designers arrived at a different set of compromises than the Shinkansen designers.

Articulated trains will always have shorter car lengths, because the distance between wheel sets can't exceed a certain value, otherwise the car body will get out of profile in curves. You can of course reduce the width of the car but that decreases passenger capacity. Some builders actually go the other way and reduce car lengths even further in order to be able to make the cars wider. The Talgo Avril is one example. Danish S-Tog sets are an extrem example of this.
The TGV design is dictated by several choices made early in the design process.
A choice was made to concentrate power in the end power cars, not distribute it over the train. This had the advantage of being able to use experiences gained with high speed locomotives in the design. Also it allows some flexibility. A defective power car can easily be swapped out, and quite a few TGV-Reseau sets have now had their intermediate cars replaced with double deck cars to increase capacity.
The articulated design of the intermediate cars, together with the conventional design of the power units means that axle load is the same on all axles. Articulated design also has safety advantages, and gives you more space for your suspension.
All in all the TGV is pretty good engineering.
K_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 12th, 2010, 11:29 AM   #1464
Ariel74
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Frankfurt am Main
Posts: 414
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by K_ View Post
All in all the TGV is pretty good engineering.
Have you ridden in an TGV and an ICE-3? If you had, you wouldn't say that. The shakes and noise and air-pressure in the ears.... A piece of good engineering should be experienceable. TGV is light years behind ICE-3 and the newest generation Shinkansen.
Ariel74 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 12th, 2010, 12:09 PM   #1465
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,744
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariel74 View Post
Have you ridden in an TGV and an ICE-3? If you had, you wouldn't say that. The shakes and noise and air-pressure in the ears.... A piece of good engineering should be experienceable. TGV is light years behind ICE-3 and the newest generation Shinkansen.
I've ridden in both, and when it comes to passenger comfort the ICE-3 is indeed ahead of the TGV. However, have you been in the ICE-3 on the new line between Köln and Frankfurt?
Nevertheless the TGV is still quite impressive. Don't forget the design is about 2 decades older than the ICE-3. I wonder what the AGV will be like. Could be a big improvement.
K_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 12th, 2010, 10:31 PM   #1466
Ariel74
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Frankfurt am Main
Posts: 414
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by K_ View Post
I've ridden in both, and when it comes to passenger comfort the ICE-3 is indeed ahead of the TGV. However, have you been in the ICE-3 on the new line between Köln and Frankfurt?
Nevertheless the TGV is still quite impressive. Don't forget the design is about 2 decades older than the ICE-3. I wonder what the AGV will be like. Could be a big improvement.
Yes, I have ridden the Köln-Frankfurt route often. It's very pleasant.

What do you mean TGV's design is 2 decades older than ICE-3? ICE-3 entered commercial service in 2000, while new prototypes of TGV have been introduced through the late nineties, and the last time in 2005. If you mean the design philosophy is much older, well, that might well be. But whose fault is that? They stuck to as I say an older technology, so of course they have fallen behind.

By the way regardless of the technologies involved, TGV, and even AGV, gives an impression of sloppy, 19th-century manufacturing finish (tapes, gratuitous openings, rough edges etc.). ICE-3, on the other hand, wears its end of 20-century precision-engineering on its sleeves, to use an old adage.

Last edited by Ariel74; May 12th, 2010 at 11:18 PM.
Ariel74 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 12th, 2010, 11:54 PM   #1467
HyperMiler
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 240
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexis View Post
May i ask why Japan won't invest in the Northeast Corridor?
Japanese are seeking out totally segregated new corridor projects, not upgraded corridor projects, because Shinkansen cannot share tracks.

Quote:
Why Florida?
Supposedly new segregated tracks exclusively for high speed trains.

There is no guarantee of segregated tracks for California.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariel74 View Post
The shakes and noise and air-pressure in the ears....
Must be an older model. Later models are airtight to address pressure variation issue.

Quote:
TGV is light years behind ICE-3 and the newest generation Shinkansen.
French answer to ICE3 and Shinkansen E5/N700 is AGV, not TGV.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariel74 View Post
What do you mean TGV's design is 2 decades older than ICE-3?
TGV entered service in early 80s and kept the basic design over the years. ICE3 is a totally new design entering service in 2000.

Quote:
But whose fault is that? They stuck to as I say an older technology, so of course they have fallen behind.
There is a strong safety merit of articulated design; ICE's tragic "jack-knife" collision accident would not have happened with TGV's design.

Quote:
ICE-3, on the other hand, wears its end of 20-century precision-engineering on its sleeves, to use an old adage.
And it also enjoys the benefit of riding on a newer track.

Last edited by HyperMiler; May 13th, 2010 at 12:00 AM.
HyperMiler no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 13th, 2010, 01:09 PM   #1468
makita09
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,536
Likes (Received): 92

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuraiBlue View Post
So Alstrom made shorter carts to reduce axle load. Really not something to brag about.
You are so incapable of humility when you are corrected.
__________________
"There is no problem so bad that you can't make it worse" - Chris Hadfield
makita09 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 13th, 2010, 02:09 PM   #1469
SamuraiBlue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,232
Likes (Received): 195

Quote:
Originally Posted by makita09 View Post
You are so incapable of humility when you are corrected.
Why so?

This argument started with "AGV, the most advanced high speed train available for sale" and the basis of this statement was "Using distributed power cars with an articulated design (= half as many axles - less maintenance costs and improved safety) while keeping the axle load under 17 tons and still abiding by crash-resistance regulations is a real challenge. "
Some other posted "AGV's closest rival is HEMU-400X, which abandoned articulated design of KTX2 and returned to traditional axle layout design because each car is 50% longer than AGV and the axle load requirement is 13 tons."

Inclining that Alstrom's articulated design would be lighter which was wrong, some insisted it would be safer which has not been validated.

Then we have this posted, ""When you use "Jacobs" bogies you have to reduce car lengths, otherwise your train won't fit in the loading gauge." and/or "AGV is indeed shorter than competing designs, but also much lighter at only 270 ton for a 7 car train set, to keep axle load under 17 ton with powered articulated design."

Which was not the only reason.

Finally we find out through this post, "Articulated trains will always have shorter car lengths, because the distance between wheel sets can't exceed a certain value, otherwise the car body will get out of profile in curves. You can of course reduce the width of the car but that decreases passenger capacity. Some builders actually go the other way and reduce car lengths even further in order to be able to make the cars wider. The Talgo Avril is one example. Danish S-Tog sets are an extrem example of this.
The TGV design is dictated by several choices made early in the design process. ".

At the end it was just a choice of one design over another and not really the decisive answer to problems of high speed rail.

I really had a laugh when some people tried in vain to make it look more than it really is.

Which system is better?
I would say N700 on dedicated tracks because it has the largest capacity with the largest acceleration rate but people will always select based on their own set of criteria and people will debate on which is better but if we are going to debate we should do so based on fact and specs and not on quasi make believe beliefs.
SamuraiBlue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 13th, 2010, 02:22 PM   #1470
Ariel74
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Frankfurt am Main
Posts: 414
Likes (Received): 1

Just for an intuitive illustration of how far behind the French TGV is, look at it side-by-side with ICE-3. It will be obvious which one is the result of 19-century engineering

Ariel74 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 13th, 2010, 02:57 PM   #1471
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,744
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariel74 View Post
Just for an intuitive illustration of how far behind the French TGV is, look at it side-by-side with ICE-3. It will be obvious which one is the result of 19-century engineering
You mean that the TGV has modern Led lights, whereas the ICE-3 has to make do with conventional light bulbs of a type that has been around since the 19th century :-)

But yes, the ICE-3 is a prettier train, but that is to be expected. The food on board the ICE is better too.
K_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 13th, 2010, 03:02 PM   #1472
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,744
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuraiBlue View Post
Which system is better?
I would say N700 on dedicated tracks because it has the largest capacity with the largest acceleration rate but people will always select based on their own set of criteria and people will debate on which is better but if we are going to debate we should do so based on fact and specs and not on quasi make believe beliefs.
The problem is then that you need "dedicated tracks" all the way everywhere. That's a non starter in many places. The only place in Europe where most high speed trains run completely on dedicated tracks is Spain. I don't think there is a single TGV service in France that is entirely on dedicated tracks.
K_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 13th, 2010, 03:07 PM   #1473
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,744
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariel74 View Post
What do you mean TGV's design is 2 decades older than ICE-3? ICE-3 entered commercial service in 2000, while new prototypes of TGV have been introduced through the late nineties, and the last time in 2005. If you mean the design philosophy is much older, well, that might well be. But whose fault is that? They stuck to as I say an older technology, so of course they have fallen behind.
It's basically the early adopter syndrome. But the TGV design nevertheless worked well. The main disadvantage is that the power cars remove seating capacity, and now that Europe has agreed on 400m for international trains getting as many seats in this length has become an issue.

Quote:

By the way regardless of the technologies involved, TGV, and even AGV, gives an impression of sloppy, 19th-century manufacturing finish (tapes, gratuitous openings, rough edges etc.). ICE-3, on the other hand, wears its end of 20-century precision-engineering on its sleeves, to use an old adage.
It's more the difference between French and German engineering. And the simple fact the DB is now a commercial enterprise that needs to put the customers first, whereas at SNCF the employees and the suppliers still come first.

You see that in many ways, starting with the fact that the ICE has a much more comfortable interior than the TGV, and the on board catering is superior too (which is a bit of a surprise...)
K_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 13th, 2010, 03:18 PM   #1474
SamuraiBlue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,232
Likes (Received): 195

Quote:
Originally Posted by K_ View Post
The problem is then that you need "dedicated tracks" all the way everywhere. That's a non starter in many places. The only place in Europe where most high speed trains run completely on dedicated tracks is Spain. I don't think there is a single TGV service in France that is entirely on dedicated tracks.
That is why I specially wrote dedicated tracks, N700 on non segregated tracks would be troublesome due to it's high acceleration rate and high speed.
If it were to run on the US NEC it will not be able to run safely at it's top speed due to sharing with trains not adequately equipped with ATS/DATC and at grade crossing. (this would probably be true for other HSR train sets as well)

If you follow the link you'll find that there were more than 40 rail accidents in the past decade in the USA alone.

As I wrote earlier people decide based on their own criteria mine is complete segregated tracks.
SamuraiBlue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 13th, 2010, 03:31 PM   #1475
makita09
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,536
Likes (Received): 92

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuraiBlue View Post
Why so?
I was referring to you saying that the AGV is an inefficient use of space, when it was then pointed out that it has approximately the same amount of passengers per 200m train as an ICE3. You had incorrectly inferred your conclusion based on number of cars instead of total train length, and whilst you were busy arguing with the detail of everything else you didn't admit that your statement was indeed incorrect.

That everything else about bogie base length and the various approaches to axle weights had to be explained to you makes it seem that you don't actually know what you're talking about but are arguing nonetheless about the AGV vs other design paradigms.

Personally I believe the AGV is a good design for its brief, the ICE3 is a good design for its brief, and the various other approaches from around the world are also generally very good designs for their purpose. Considering all rail vehicles are required to operate over networks with different, though perhaps subtle, requirements and regulations it is unsurprising that the narrow view of focusing only on the vehicles themselves throw up apparent advantages of one trait over another that in practice are largely irrelevent.
__________________
"There is no problem so bad that you can't make it worse" - Chris Hadfield
makita09 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 13th, 2010, 03:39 PM   #1476
Ariel74
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Frankfurt am Main
Posts: 414
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by K_ View Post
It's basically the early adopter syndrome. But the TGV design nevertheless worked well. The main disadvantage is that the power cars remove seating capacity, and now that Europe has agreed on 400m for international trains getting as many seats in this length has become an issue.
Doesn't distributed power-cars design also have the advantage of providing more stability and better energy efficiency?

France is by far not the earlier adopter of HSR than Japan, but the japanese have been distributing power cars for a long time.


Quote:
It's more the difference between French and German engineering. And the simple fact the DB is now a commercial enterprise that needs to put the customers first, whereas at SNCF the employees and the suppliers still come first.
Well, some countries have better engineering than others and by the way, institutional differences give good explanations why better technology develop in one place but not another.

So essentially, you are just giving the French excuses. But from the point of view of a customer, I don't care for excuses, and would buy from Germany or Japan over France any day.
Ariel74 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 13th, 2010, 03:52 PM   #1477
SamuraiBlue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,232
Likes (Received): 195

Quote:
Originally Posted by makita09 View Post
I was referring to you saying that the AGV is an inefficient use of space, when it was then pointed out that it has approximately the same amount of passengers per 200m train as an ICE3. You had incorrectly inferred your conclusion based on number of cars instead of total train length, and whilst you were busy arguing with the detail of everything else you didn't admit that your statement was indeed incorrect.
I did not bring up this comparison;
Quote:
AGV : 270 ton for 7 x 17m cars.
HEMU-400x : 414 ton for 8 x 25m cars
efSET : 450 ton for 8 x 25m cars
I merely replied.

As for AGV 200m 11 cart capacity, I have not yet seen a report to verify this figure, as for Velaro D 8 cart capacity, Wiki posts the following;
"200 m/8 cars with up to 536 seats"
Which is 100 seat more than AGV.


Quote:
That everything else about bogie base length and the various approaches to axle weights had to be explained to you makes it seem that you don't actually know what you're talking about but are arguing nonetheless about the AGV vs other design paradigms.
Again I was merely replying to other posts based on false conjectures.
As for my knowledge on design limits on articulated trains, I thought Alsthom came up with a radical breakthrough to negate the problem which would be something to brag about.
SamuraiBlue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 13th, 2010, 04:13 PM   #1478
HyperMiler
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 240
Likes (Received): 0

Traditional Bogies


German ICE disaster

Japanese commuter train disaster.

Articulated Bogies prevent above situation in a derailment, and this is the reason French are sticking with articulated bogie design.
HyperMiler no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 13th, 2010, 04:24 PM   #1479
SamuraiBlue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,232
Likes (Received): 195

Articulated or not, I believe the unfortunate Amagasaki accident would have happened due to over speeding on a curve.
(The accident has nothing to do with jackknifing nor collision)
SamuraiBlue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 13th, 2010, 04:43 PM   #1480
HyperMiler
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 240
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuraiBlue View Post
Articulated or not, I believe the unfortunate Amagasaki accident would have happened due to over speeding on a curve.
(The accident has nothing to do with jackknifing nor collision)
The reason for articulated bogie design is to prevent jackknifing in the case of above accident situations. Yes, the train will derail, but they will continue to move forward as one piece.

Articulated bogies have their limitations, but they are inherently safer than traditional bogies in derailment accidents. This is what makes HEMU-400X's abandonment of articulated bogie design interesting. Do Koreans have a solution for jackknifing problem or not without articulated bogies?
HyperMiler no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
amtrak, desertxpress, fly california, high speed rail, northeast corridor, texas triangle, united states

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 09:49 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