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 March 8th, 2009, 11:10 PM   #21
uk-highspeed
High Speed Rail Fan
 
uk-highspeed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Cambridge, UK
Posts: 92
Likes (Received): 1

Just quoting Alstom... but you're right, it doesn't add up...

I'm a bit out of my expertise here - but at the largest specification, it should be 12,000kW / 510 tonnes (should have been quoted as metric tonnes, although one part of Alstom's website does say 'ton' instead, which is just confusing!) = 23.53kW/tonne or 0.024kW/kg - so not far off 22.6kW/t. I guess there's some deficiency in there somewhere.

The 'greater than 1kW/kg' figure, I've now realised, is referring to just the motor - I think - rather than the whole train. It's on this page.

To avoid any confusion, I'll edit my original post.

Alstom claims the 22.6kW/t figure is 23% higher than it's nearest competitor. They also claim it uses 15% less energy in the process.

What's confusing, is the 'TGV Handbook' by the late Brian Perren, gives the TGV Duplex a P-W ratio of 31.04HP/t, which unless I've worked it out wrong*, is 23.15kW/t... so more than the quoted figure for the AGV... although it also gives the 16-car Eurostar sets (the former 'regional' sets now used by SNCF) - which are the nearest to 14-cars - as only 18.34kW/t.

* A straight conversion from HP to kW using Google.

Last edited by uk-highspeed; March 8th, 2009 at 11:30 PM. Reason: Added bit from TGV Handbook
uk-highspeed no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old March 9th, 2009, 04:33 AM   #22
loefet
Registered User
 
loefet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Göteborg
Posts: 525
Likes (Received): 233

The 16 car set of the N700 series Shinkansen have a power to weight ratio of 23.89 kW/t, and the 8 car set would have higher ratio since it doesn't have any non powered cars as the 16 car set have.

I would guess that the 500 series might have even higher Power to Weight ratio since it have even more power on board, but I can't find any weight for it.

And when they reveal the spec for the E5 sets then it might also outperform the AGV.

But the fun thing is that Alstom makes a lot of claims about the AGV, most of which have been superseded by other manufacturers, like: "It's the lightest train of it's type", "It haven't been possible to make a distributed power multiple unit until now", etc.
loefet no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 9th, 2009, 05:05 AM   #23
Mynameischarlie
Mig-28 Pilot
 
Mynameischarlie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: chasing Tomcats
Posts: 364
Likes (Received): 2

The export success of each systems tells how good it is.

BTW: Shinkansen is Vietnam's choice. 350km/h in from Hanoi to Saigon.
The line is sheduled to open in 2025. Construction cost is expected to be 55 billion US$ - naturally partly financed by Japanese ODA.
Mynameischarlie no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 9th, 2009, 05:45 AM   #24
gramercy
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 4,823
Likes (Received): 799

Vietnam? How sure is that?
gramercy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 9th, 2009, 09:34 AM   #25
Tri-ring
Expert
 
Tri-ring's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 459
Likes (Received): 7

Quote:
Originally Posted by uk-highspeed View Post
I'm a bit out of my expertise here - but at the largest specification, it should be 12,000kW / 510 tonnes (should have been quoted as metric tonnes, although one part of Alstom's website does say 'ton' instead, which is just confusing!) = 23.53kW/tonne or 0.024kW/kg - so not far off 22.6kW/t. I guess there's some deficiency in there somewhere.

Alstom claims the 22.6kW/t figure is 23% higher than it's nearest competitor. They also claim it uses 15% less energy in the process.
Quote:
Originally Posted by loefet View Post
The 16 car set of the N700 series Shinkansen have a power to weight ratio of 23.89 kW/t, and the 8 car set would have higher ratio since it doesn't have any non powered cars as the 16 car set have.
I really cannot understand why Alstrom makes such a claim like that when the specs for N700 series have been written in public since it went into service.

=Edit=
As for the weight of Shinkansen 500 series, it is 688t at 16 cart train sets.
The power output is ;

285kW×64 = 18,240kW(W1 type)

275kW×64 = 17,600kW(W2 type and afterwards)
__________________
banned for denial of war crimes in world war 2.

Last edited by Tri-ring; March 9th, 2009 at 10:18 AM.
Tri-ring no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 9th, 2009, 10:28 AM   #26
uk-highspeed
High Speed Rail Fan
 
uk-highspeed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Cambridge, UK
Posts: 92
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tri-ring View Post
I really cannot understand why Alstrom makes such a claim like that when the specs for N700 series have been written in public since it went into service.
I guess it depends on your definition of "nearest" competitor - which is a bit of a cheeky term. The Shinkansen isn't a European product, so perhaps they have confined their specs to being geographically nearest? Still misleading...

Is the Velaro the only real European competitor?
uk-highspeed no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 9th, 2009, 01:01 PM   #27
loefet
Registered User
 
loefet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Göteborg
Posts: 525
Likes (Received): 233

If the Velaro is the nearest competitor then they really need to get some math lessons. Since according to the data on Wikipedia, then the Velaro have a Power to Weight ratio of around (depends on version) 20kW/t. And saying that 22.6 kW/t is 23% more is just wrong.

And by Tri-Ring's data about the 500 series Shinkansen, then it pawns most other trains, with a Power to Weight ratio of 26.5 kW/t (W1) and 25.6 kW/t (W2).

And in my opinion then HSR trains are a global market, so that you should really compare all trains.
loefet no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 9th, 2009, 03:51 PM   #28
Tri-ring
Expert
 
Tri-ring's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 459
Likes (Received): 7

Quote:
Originally Posted by uk-highspeed View Post
I guess it depends on your definition of "nearest" competitor - which is a bit of a cheeky term. The Shinkansen isn't a European product, so perhaps they have confined their specs to being geographically nearest? Still misleading...

Is the Velaro the only real European competitor?
Quote:
Originally Posted by loefet View Post
If the Velaro is the nearest competitor then they really need to get some math lessons. Since according to the data on Wikipedia, then the Velaro have a Power to Weight ratio of around (depends on version) 20kW/t. And saying that 22.6 kW/t is 23% more is just wrong.

And by Tri-Ring's data about the 500 series Shinkansen, then it pawns most other trains, with a Power to Weight ratio of 26.5 kW/t (W1) and 25.6 kW/t (W2).

And in my opinion then HSR trains are a global market, so that you should really compare all trains.
Which series is Alstrom comparing AGV with then??????
This is the lamest sales talk I had ever heard and in Japan it would probably be sued by FTC for misinformative advertisement.
__________________
banned for denial of war crimes in world war 2.
Tri-ring no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 9th, 2009, 08:39 PM   #29
dösanhoro
Registered User
 
dösanhoro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Helsinki
Posts: 218
Likes (Received): 53

What I would like to know the most are the initial and operating costs of these systems. I think they are a lot more important than slight differences in accelration for example. Ticket price is a maker or breaker for people.
dösanhoro no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 10th, 2009, 01:40 AM   #30
Tri-ring
Expert
 
Tri-ring's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 459
Likes (Received): 7

Quote:
Originally Posted by dösanhoro View Post
What I would like to know the most are the initial and operating costs of these systems. I think they are a lot more important than slight differences in accelration for example. Ticket price is a maker or breaker for people.
Although initial and operating costs are important, they may not always be the driving factor for ticket price since there are other factors such as interest rates for repayment, land usage rights, ridership rate, marketing costs, competitor price, and so on.
__________________
banned for denial of war crimes in world war 2.
Tri-ring no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 10th, 2009, 05:38 AM   #31
loefet
Registered User
 
loefet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Göteborg
Posts: 525
Likes (Received): 233

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tri-ring View Post
Which series is Alstrom comparing AGV with then??????
The HSR EMU that is the closest to the AGV (according to specifications) is the JR East E3 trains.

They are both roughly the same size and have the same power (for a 7 car train), the only differences between them is that the E3 have way more seats and the AGV goes faster (but then again the E3 could probably run faster).

Alstom have claimed that it haven't been possible to make a EMU train with a maximum axle load of 17t until now. OK, so they use Jacobs boogies (TGV style between the cars), which means that they have less wheels to spread the weight on, but that is their problem...
And if the JR companies want a train with Jacobs boogies (which they have tested on at least one experimental trains, Class 953 "STAR 21") it shouldn't be a problem for the manufacturer to make and still only use the technology from the 90's.
Now we just have to wait and see what JR East is planning for the E6 (or what ever the name that the new generation train for the Akita Shinkansen will get)...
loefet no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 10th, 2009, 06:32 AM   #32
Tri-ring
Expert
 
Tri-ring's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 459
Likes (Received): 7

Quote:
Originally Posted by loefet View Post
The HSR EMU that is the closest to the AGV (according to specifications) is the JR East E3 trains.

They are both roughly the same size and have the same power (for a 7 car train), the only differences between them is that the E3 have way more seats and the AGV goes faster (but then again the E3 could probably run faster)..
Yeah that makes real sense.
E3, a series that have been in service for 10years designed for Mini-Shinkansen standard and not the full Shinkansen standard.
By the way the E3 weighs 258.6t and the power output is;

300kW×16=4,800kW(R formation)18.56KW/t
300kW×20=6,000kW(Lformation)23.20KW/t

Showing again, Alstrom can't do their math.
__________________
banned for denial of war crimes in world war 2.
Tri-ring no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 10th, 2009, 07:28 AM   #33
loefet
Registered User
 
loefet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Göteborg
Posts: 525
Likes (Received): 233

I'm not sure if you can use that weight for both train types since the R formation have 1 car less, so that the power/weight would be a bit higher.

But yeah Alstom really need to get their facts right about their claims.
loefet no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 11th, 2009, 03:53 PM   #34
CharlieP
Tax avoider
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 23,762
Likes (Received): 1980

Quote:
Originally Posted by uk-highspeed View Post
510 tonnes (should have been quoted as metric tonnes, although one part of Alstom's website does say 'ton' instead, which is just confusing!)
Um, "metric tonne" is a tautology. A tonne is 1000 kg, sometimes referred to as a "metric ton".
__________________
This signature is socialist and un-American.
CharlieP no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 12th, 2009, 11:46 AM   #35
uk-highspeed
High Speed Rail Fan
 
uk-highspeed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Cambridge, UK
Posts: 92
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlieP View Post
Um, "metric tonne" is a tautology. A tonne is 1000 kg, sometimes referred to as a "metric ton".
Thanks - always confuses me.
uk-highspeed no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 14th, 2009, 04:16 AM   #36
Tri-ring
Expert
 
Tri-ring's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 459
Likes (Received): 7

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tri-ring View Post
I have not yet found the specs for E5.
If I remember correctly, standstill to top speed of 270 by N700 is 5 minutes. I do not know the service deceleration rate(time) is but I suspect this is dictated more by passenger comfort than technology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sequoias View Post
At least it's faster than the VW bus that goes zero to 60 in 11 minutes.

I believe it can accelerate faster than that, but they do it for passenger comfort too. I don't think they want to go full throttle and the passengers would fall down.
Sorry my mistake,the 700 series takes 300 seconds(5 minutes) from stand still to top speed. The N700 180 seconds(3 minutes) from stand still to top speed according to JR Tokai WS.
__________________
banned for denial of war crimes in world war 2.
Tri-ring no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 15th, 2009, 09:40 AM   #37
bluemeansgo
Registered User
 
bluemeansgo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 451
Likes (Received): 124

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mynameischarlie View Post
The export success of each systems tells how good it is.

BTW: Shinkansen is Vietnam's choice. 350km/h in from Hanoi to Saigon.
The line is sheduled to open in 2025. Construction cost is expected to be 55 billion US$ - naturally partly financed by Japanese ODA.
If it gets built, yes, it will be Shinkansen. Of course, it probably has a lot to do with the fact that Japan has been pouring money into Vietnam as of late in terms of foreign aid and creating stronger ties between the two countries.

I don't think the success of a train's export has anything to do with how good a train is. That just tells you how well it suits a number of buyer's requirements.

What's a better car, a Toyota Prius or a Toyota Sienna?

It all depends on your point of view. If you run a taxi business you'll take the Prius, if you have 4 kids, you'll take the Sienna.

Likewise, a HSR system may be perfect for one country but too expensive or not fast enough, or not efficient enough, or not safe enough, or not flexible enough, or not good enough quality, or not long enough for another.
bluemeansgo no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
alstom

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 06:41 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