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 January 26th, 2014, 04:41 PM   #2561
kbbcn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Barcelona, Catalunya
Posts: 213
Likes (Received): 61

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard_P View Post
I was with Talgo Avril in its initial concept with distributed power under first two and last two cars which would also feature seats (initial visualisations in link below, picture 6 shows it):
http://www.vialibre-ffe.com/multi_galeria.asp?gal=338
while present Avril is just another typical Talgo with powered cars and trailers inside thus my feelings for this train had frozen a bit.
I'm sorry that I can't share your enthusiasm: 2+3 seating?

What are they thinking? Do they really want train travel to go the way of air travel?
kbbcn no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old January 26th, 2014, 05:12 PM   #2562
Reivajar
__________
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 12,081
Likes (Received): 3340

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard_P View Post
I won't give You exact numbers but that figure can be high as overall opinion is that the tracks itself may reach 40-60% of line costs. It is not about (or just) saved rails and sleepers but is also about setting correct geometry to track which requires tamping, grinding end so on. Thanks to only one track you can save also on turnouts as well as on electric catenaries so it may result in cost reductions. Although those savings are only for a while and second track sooner or later will be build.

Although I think that this problem is a result of a bit too optimistic approach in which everything is made to retain both gauges which is clearly unfeasible. Choosing UIC gauge to HS rail was a political issue but now it is clear that Spain for growth needs UIC but freight connections. If this problem would be spotted soon enough HS lanes with insufficient traffic could be built as mixed use as in Italy Alta Velocita / Alta Capacita. Adding to that some other projects it was possible to achieve not only HS UIC gauge but also vast parts of Spain would be reachable by UIC freight trains.
As well, the Spanish government knows it is necessary to open many different new lines before the elections in mid-2015, and the lack of money for all of them forces him to look for "innovative" solutions of saving money and keeping openings going on. Furthermore, the European funds for some of those lines have some sort of expiration date, so, at the end of the day, opening a new line with UIC gauge is the main priority.

In the short term those single tracks sections won't be a problems as traffic would be sort of low as the whole corridors won't be finished. For the UIC gauge network for freght trains, in some cases mixed used lines are planned, either new ones (Basque Y) or updating of existing ones through third rail (Mediterranean Corridor from Vandellós (Tarragona) to Valencia). That's true, in the future more and more mixed used lines will be opened, but as well because of the updating of the conventional network. The UIC migration is planned for the whole Iberian network in the medium-long term.

Quote:
I was with Talgo Avril in its initial concept with distributed power under first two and last two cars which would also feature seats (initial visualisations in link below, picture 6 shows it):
http://www.vialibre-ffe.com/multi_galeria.asp?gal=338
while present Avril is just another typical Talgo with powered cars and trailers inside thus my feelings for this train had frozen a bit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbbcn View Post
I'm sorry that I can't share your enthusiasm: 2+3 seating?

What are they thinking? Do they really want train travel to go the way of air travel?
We are talking about two different generations of Talgo Avril trainsets. The Avril concept is not only about developing a distributed traction train, but about many other things.

The current one is the G3 which mostly develops a wider box body for fitting more seats because of a better optimization of the shorter car position on the rails. Basically, 2+3 seats are possible because the car is wider than any other European UIC gauge car. This way, you can reach almost the same capacity of a TGV Duplex but in one single level trainset, which is far better for everything (costs, dynamics, material optimization, weight, accessibility). So 2+3 seats within the trains doesn't mean an extremely narrower space for passengers. Maybe the seat itself is slightly smaller than the current average, but as I have been able to see on the pics showed inside the trains, the whole seats have been redesigned for a lighter general design, which is far better as the comfort is not affected.

In the following generation (Avril G4) the distributed traction will be implemented, keeping the rest of improvements done in the G3.
__________________

SAS 16, dirdam liked this post
Reivajar no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 26th, 2014, 05:27 PM   #2563
kbbcn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Barcelona, Catalunya
Posts: 213
Likes (Received): 61

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reivajar View Post
The current one is the G3 which mostly develops a wider box body for fitting more seats because of a better optimization of the shorter car position on the rails. Basically, 2+3 seats are possible because the car is wider than any other European UIC gauge car. This way, you can reach almost the same capacity of a TGV Duplex but in one single level trainset, which is far better for everything (costs, dynamics, material optimization, weight, accessibility). So 2+3 seats within the trains doesn't mean an extremely narrower space for passengers. Maybe the seat itself is slightly smaller than the current average, but as I have been able to see on the pics showed inside the trains, the whole seats have been redesigned for a lighter general design, which is far better as the comfort is not affected.
Since this is still a concept, is it being developed with a specific market in mind? I can imagine you cannot simply use a wider body anywhere you want...
kbbcn no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 26th, 2014, 05:43 PM   #2564
Reivajar
__________
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 12,081
Likes (Received): 3340

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbbcn View Post
Since this is still a concept, is it being developed with a specific market in mind? I can imagine you cannot simply use a wider body anywhere you want...
Well, it is not a concept itself, but the new industrial development for Talgo. Basically the company wants to offer trains with the same cost and more capacity, which makes cheaper the trainset itself. Furthermore there is not any other company which can offer that capacity within an European gauge train without using double deck.

The target for Talgo is basically always Spain. But I think they are thinking on high capacity trains for new markets such as Brazil, Russia and ex-Soviet republics. But being able of offering high capacity trains in a single level trains would be the main advantage when saturated corridors need to be served.

In general, for companies would be possible to reduce operational costs as the density of seats is higher. Lower fares, more capacity and more people traveling.

You know, already developed high speed national markets (France, Germany, China, Japan...) usually are extremely protective for own national companies and technology... so exporting that concept to other countries such as France were Alstom high speed duplex trains are intensively used would be extremely complicated, but you never know.
Reivajar no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 26th, 2014, 09:29 PM   #2565
Richard_P
Registered User
 
Richard_P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Sesame Street
Posts: 4,800
Likes (Received): 2585

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbbcn View Post
I'm sorry that I can't share your enthusiasm: 2+3 seating?
And who said that My enthusiasm is for 2+3 seating which is completely opposite (more below) while Avril was designed with two widths in which basic was for 2+2.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reivajar
We are talking about two different generations of Talgo Avril trainsets. The Avril concept is not only about developing a distributed traction train, but about many other things.
For Me Talgo Avril made sense strictly because its distributed power combined with Talgo bogies made from this train "space shuttle" just like AGV.

Quote:
The current one is the G3 which mostly develops a wider box body for fitting more seats because of a better optimization of the shorter car position on the rails. Basically, 2+3 seats are possible because the car is wider than any other European UIC gauge car. This way, you can reach almost the same capacity of a TGV Duplex but in one single level trainset, which is far better for everything (costs, dynamics, material optimization, weight, accessibility).
Well without distributed power You don't get the same number of passengers as TGV Duplex as Duplex has ca. 30% higher capacity while in single level 2+3 arrangement You can get only 15% higher number. The key to initial Talgo comparisons was with distributed power. Talgo350 is 200 m long but it features two 20,87 m "locos" on both ends which gives only 158 m of length for passenger cars. So basically You have 42 m of unproductive space. But when adding there space for passengers You can effectively use 16 m of every "head" getting 32 m of full available space and if you make that by 4 seats in row You will get 128 m in one line compare to 158 available for additional seat row in 2+3 although much of it is used by car joints and entrances. So simply counting You get the same seats increase by using distributed power or by making 2+3 seating and only those two combined can generate number of places comparable with Duplex. So without distributed power Talgo Avril concept doesn't fulfill its expectations and I hypothetically as train company would opt for other distributed solutions as AGV, Oaris, Velaro, Zefiro than 2+3 in Talgo.


Quote:
So 2+3 seats within the trains doesn't mean an extremely narrower space for passengers. Maybe the seat itself is slightly smaller than the current average, but as I have been able to see on the pics showed inside the trains, the whole seats have been redesigned for a lighter general design, which is far better as the comfort is not affected.
ATM 2+3 seats in high speed trains can be found only in Asia and even with that those trains feature much wider bodies (3,3-3,5 m). In Europe only example is Russia with its Sapsan but again those trains are wider with 3,265 m. The widest use of 2+3 on European standard gauge tracks is in Norway, Sweden and France but those countries use it only in regional trains despite fact that Regina trains are 3,5 m wide and SJ purchased some for long distance trains with only 2+2 arrangement. Flirts for NSB are a bit narrower with 3,2 m wide bodies but also here only regional trains received 2+3 while long distance have 2+2 seats.

Of course all those trains use wider clearance which (apart from 1520 mm gauge network) is in Norway, Sweden, Germany, Austria and all former east block countries. Meanwhile Spain as France, Italy and Portugal opted for minimum clearance thus here it is significant that Talgo train can be 3,2 m wide but again it isn't enough to European customers to justify 2+3 seats at least as long as HS trains are a "premium" product not LCC airlines. Although I do admit that such Avril may attract non European customers as You have mentioned:
Quote:
But I think they are thinking on high capacity trains for new markets such as Brazil, Russia and ex-Soviet republics
Richard_P no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 26th, 2014, 11:02 PM   #2566
437.001
Sister Greed U
 
437.001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: on the road (Spain)
Posts: 31,994
Likes (Received): 15416

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard_P View Post
Although I think that this problem is a result of a bit too optimistic approach in which everything is made to retain both gauges which is clearly unfeasible. Choosing UIC gauge to HS rail was a political issue but now it is clear that Spain for growth needs UIC but freight connections. If this problem would be spotted soon enough HS lanes with insufficient traffic could be built as mixed use as in Italy Alta Velocita / Alta Capacita. Adding to that some other projects it was possible to achieve not only HS UIC gauge but also vast parts of Spain would be reachable by UIC freight trains.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reivajar View Post
As well, the Spanish government knows it is necessary to open many different new lines before the elections in mid-2015, and the lack of money for all of them forces him to look for "innovative" solutions of saving money and keeping openings going on. Furthermore, the European funds for some of those lines have some sort of expiration date, so, at the end of the day, opening a new line with UIC gauge is the main priority.

In the short term those single tracks sections won't be a problems as traffic would be sort of low as the whole corridors won't be finished. For the UIC gauge network for freght trains, in some cases mixed used lines are planned, either new ones (Basque Y) or updating of existing ones through third rail (Mediterranean Corridor from Vandellós (Tarragona) to Valencia). That's true, in the future more and more mixed used lines will be opened, but as well because of the updating of the conventional network. The UIC migration is planned for the whole Iberian network in the medium-long term.
Two good posts.

The Ministry seems to finally have realised that they have to come to terms with the duality of gauges, and that they have to really change the gauge of the Iberian-gauge network, and maybe parts of the metric-gauge network too (albeit later, since all of this is not going to be free of charge, as you can imagine...).

They even seem to have a deadline for the changing of gauge in some freight axis, which of course will also involve passenger traffic (2016 for Barcelona-Tarragona-Cartagena, 2018 for Hendaye/Irun-Fuentes de Oñoro/Vilar Formoso, and 2024 for Tarragona-Zaragoza-Madrid-Manzanares-Puertollano-Merida-Badajoz/Elvas. All these dates can of course not be respected, it will all depend on the budget).

Works seem to have started between Valencia and Castellon, and they are underway between Vandellos and Vila-seca, and we´re all awaiting the start of Works between Castellbisbal (current southern end of the freight standard gauge) and Vila-seca (just next to Tarragona), since this will allow the Martorell Seat Factory and the BASF and Bayer Tarragona chemical factories (as well as the connection with the Tarragona port, another of the main ports in Spain) to start exporting through rail.

Since this is not exactly on topic, as it exceeds the boundaries of HSR, I keep this post here, but I´m re-posting it in the "SPAIN | Railways" general thread, where it actually belongs.
It will be interesting to follow this interesting discussion there.
__________________
&&& abcde PMR en Cat ImpTgn Cat2017
Everybody got a job to lose (A.E, Vision Thing, WEA, 1990)
437.001 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 26th, 2014, 11:07 PM   #2567
Reivajar
__________
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 12,081
Likes (Received): 3340

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard_P View Post
For Me Talgo Avril made sense strictly because its distributed power combined with Talgo bogies made from this train "space shuttle" just like AGV.
Yes, I agree completely with you, but every new generation makes sense as it makes easier the following step and in the meanwhile you can take advantage of the last developments.


Quote:
Well without distributed power You don't get the same number of passengers as TGV Duplex as Duplex has ca. 30% higher capacity while in single level 2+3 arrangement You can get only 15% higher number. The key to initial Talgo comparisons was with distributed power. Talgo350 is 200 m long but it features two 20,87 m "locos" on both ends which gives only 158 m of length for passenger cars. So basically You have 42 m of unproductive space. But when adding there space for passengers You can effectively use 16 m of every "head" getting 32 m of full available space and if you make that by 4 seats in row You will get 128 m in one line compare to 158 available for additional seat row in 2+3 although much of it is used by car joints and entrances. So simply counting You get the same seats increase by using distributed power or by making 2+3 seating and only those two combined can generate number of places comparable with Duplex. So without distributed power Talgo Avril concept doesn't fulfill its expectations and I hypothetically as train company would opt for other distributed solutions as AGV, Oaris, Velaro, Zefiro than 2+3 in Talgo.
Yes, but the Avril G3 has already a big improvement in capacity.

Renfe class 112: 365 seats
Talgo Avril G3: 550 seats
Talgo Avril G3 (only tourist class + cafeteria): 592 seats
Talgo Avril G4: 600 seats

TGV POS: 361 seats
TGV Duplex: 508 seats
TGV 2N2: 509 seats
TGV Ouigo (without cafeteria): 634 seats

AGV for NTV: 460 seats
Velaro E (Renfe class 103): 404 seats
Velaro D: 460 seats


Considering the much better performance of a single level train in accessibility, stability, dynamics, energy consumption, time for getting in and out; I consider that even for the European market the new Talgos can make lot of sense, above all on saturated corridors.


Quote:
ATM 2+3 seats in high speed trains can be found only in Asia and even with that those trains feature much wider bodies (3,3-3,5 m). In Europe only example is Russia with its Sapsan but again those trains are wider with 3,265 m. The widest use of 2+3 on European standard gauge tracks is in Norway, Sweden and France but those countries use it only in regional trains despite fact that Regina trains are 3,5 m wide and SJ purchased some for long distance trains with only 2+2 arrangement. Flirts for NSB are a bit narrower with 3,2 m wide bodies but also here only regional trains received 2+3 while long distance have 2+2 seats.

Of course all those trains use wider clearance which (apart from 1520 mm gauge network) is in Norway, Sweden, Germany, Austria and all former east block countries. Meanwhile Spain as France, Italy and Portugal opted for minimum clearance thus here it is significant that Talgo train can be 3,2 m wide but again it isn't enough to European customers to justify 2+3 seats at least as long as HS trains are a "premium" product not LCC airlines. Although I do admit that such Avril may attract non European customers as You have mentioned:
Anyway, the final layout of the new Talgo trains will depend on the companies requirements, and narrow body (2+2) and wide body (2+2 and 2+3) combinations are available. I haven't tried the new Talgo seats, but I am not sure if they are so uncomfortable. On low cost airlines, the width of seats it is important, but the pitch is even more critical, and in that aspect, trains keeps far better.

Finally, I think that the adoption of Talgo trains in other countries will depend mostly on politics and on how-know of the larger national railway companies. So, that's why I think for Talgo would be easier to introduce its technology on new markets, not in already mature ones.
Reivajar no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 27th, 2014, 12:37 AM   #2568
Richard_P
Registered User
 
Richard_P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Sesame Street
Posts: 4,800
Likes (Received): 2585

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reivajar View Post
Yes, I agree completely with you, but every new generation makes sense as it makes easier the following step and in the meanwhile you can take advantage of the last developments.
That's true but for me this isn't this "space shuttle" as AGV which I've been expecting Avril will be

Quote:
Yes, but the Avril G3 has already a big improvement in capacity.
Anyway, the final layout of the new Talgo trains will depend on the companies requirements, and narrow body (2+2) and wide body (2+2 and 2+3) combinations are available. I haven't tried the new Talgo seats, but I am not sure if they are so uncomfortable. On low cost airlines, the width of seats it is important, but the pitch is even more critical, and in that aspect, trains keeps far better.
It is hard to compare between those trains as every train operator sets its own standards while those can vary for many reasons. Adjusting seat pitch is essential as company must balance between travel time, price and most importantly human dimensions. Generally Spain has short travel times on HS lines but Germany is other example. Regarding price Germany have higher rates than France. And what someone may find questionable but general trends say that population of southern Europe is slightly smaller than people from north of the continent which reflects need for greater seat pitch. Interesting case is in Amsterdam where new metro cars were ordered with 2,1 m high doors as 2 m became problem for much of the population.


Quote:
Considering the much better performance of a single level train in accessibility, stability, dynamics, energy consumption, time for getting in and out; I consider that even for the European market the new Talgos can make lot of sense, above all on saturated corridors.
Again I agree with that but don't see any particular advantage of Talgo train sets use. Cars may be wide but most of European customers expect 2+2 rather than 2+3 and if I can put the same number of passengers with this alignment (AGV, Velato etc.) 2+3 in Talgo isn't any advantage. Maybe this isn't seen in Spain where HS connections use new dedicated corridors or they run not so populated areas but those 2 power units are a complete waste of space and Avril was aimed at solving that problem. Particular example is class 730 which in 200 m length has 70 m wasted for propulsion purposes - although useful those trains are highly ineffective and somehow sum up Spain’s overspending. I bet CAF could build something with similar parameters based on 121 series with under floor diesel engines... .


Quote:
Finally, I think that the adoption of Talgo trains in other countries will depend mostly on politics and on how-know of the larger national railway companies. So, that's why I think for Talgo would be easier to introduce its technology on new markets, not in already mature ones.
Already mature markets have established suppliers so the only way for Talgo is to go on new markets which as I said earlier may be interested in cheaper train set with 2+3 arrangement than complicated "space shuttle"
Richard_P no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 27th, 2014, 01:57 AM   #2569
AlexNL
Registered User
 
AlexNL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,629
Likes (Received): 537

I've sat in the Avril and while it does have 2+3 seating, it definitely does not feel cramped at all. The train on display at InnoTrans felt spacious, the seats were wide enough for me (a Dutchman) to sit in. The seat pitch was good as well. The car body is lower than that of an average HST, this is how Talgo could make the body wider while still being able to fit the body in the regular UIC-GC loading gauge.

I hope Talgo will be able to find an operator for these trains to run outside of Spain as well.
__________________
We are shaping the future
AlexNL no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 27th, 2014, 02:34 AM   #2570
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,534
Likes (Received): 21241

Is the corridor narrower?
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 27th, 2014, 07:47 AM   #2571
437.001
Sister Greed U
 
437.001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: on the road (Spain)
Posts: 31,994
Likes (Received): 15416

Madrid-Galicia HSL.
Section Olmedo Junction-Zamora.

Pictures taken between Toro and Zamora.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CARBALOSIELLA View Post
__________________
&&& abcde PMR en Cat ImpTgn Cat2017
Everybody got a job to lose (A.E, Vision Thing, WEA, 1990)

FM 2258 liked this post
437.001 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 27th, 2014, 08:00 AM   #2572
437.001
Sister Greed U
 
437.001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: on the road (Spain)
Posts: 31,994
Likes (Received): 15416

Madrid-Galicia HSL.
Section Olmedo Junction-Zamora.

Pictures taken between Toro and Zamora.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CARBALOSIELLA View Post
__________________
&&& abcde PMR en Cat ImpTgn Cat2017
Everybody got a job to lose (A.E, Vision Thing, WEA, 1990)
437.001 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 27th, 2014, 08:07 AM   #2573
437.001
Sister Greed U
 
437.001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: on the road (Spain)
Posts: 31,994
Likes (Received): 15416

Madrid-Galicia HSL.
Section Olmedo Junction-Zamora.

Pictures taken between Toro and Zamora.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CARBALOSIELLA View Post
__________________
&&& abcde PMR en Cat ImpTgn Cat2017
Everybody got a job to lose (A.E, Vision Thing, WEA, 1990)
437.001 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 27th, 2014, 08:16 AM   #2574
437.001
Sister Greed U
 
437.001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: on the road (Spain)
Posts: 31,994
Likes (Received): 15416

Madrid-Galicia HSL.
Section Olmedo Junction-Zamora.

Pictures taken between Toro and Zamora.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CARBALOSIELLA View Post
__________________
&&& abcde PMR en Cat ImpTgn Cat2017
Everybody got a job to lose (A.E, Vision Thing, WEA, 1990)
437.001 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 27th, 2014, 08:23 AM   #2575
437.001
Sister Greed U
 
437.001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: on the road (Spain)
Posts: 31,994
Likes (Received): 15416

Madrid-Galicia HSL.
Section Olmedo Junction-Zamora.

Pictures taken between Toro and Zamora.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CARBALOSIELLA View Post
__________________
&&& abcde PMR en Cat ImpTgn Cat2017
Everybody got a job to lose (A.E, Vision Thing, WEA, 1990)
437.001 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 27th, 2014, 08:32 AM   #2576
437.001
Sister Greed U
 
437.001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: on the road (Spain)
Posts: 31,994
Likes (Received): 15416

Madrid-Galicia HSL.
Section Olmedo Junction-Zamora.

Pictures taken between Toro and Zamora.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CARBALOSIELLA View Post
__________________
&&& abcde PMR en Cat ImpTgn Cat2017
Everybody got a job to lose (A.E, Vision Thing, WEA, 1990)
437.001 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 27th, 2014, 10:19 AM   #2577
AlexNL
Registered User
 
AlexNL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,629
Likes (Received): 537

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
Is the corridor narrower?
Only a little. Here's a picture of the interior, made by forummer Maarten Otto:


Maarten's opinion:
Quote:
There was a moment when the Avril gave me the feeling of stepping into a modern well equipped aircraft.

Although the isle looks narrow, I was able to walk normally through the coach, something both passengers and train staff will highly appreciate.
__________________
We are shaping the future

437.001 liked this post
AlexNL no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 27th, 2014, 11:25 AM   #2578
Reivajar
__________
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 12,081
Likes (Received): 3340

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard_P View Post
That's true but for me this isn't this "space shuttle" as AGV which I've been expecting Avril will be
Hahahaha, ok ok. I know.
I understand you. Don't worry. Just you need to wait for the Avril G4 (I hope so...)


Quote:
Again I agree with that but don't see any particular advantage of Talgo train sets use. Cars may be wide but most of European customers expect 2+2 rather than 2+3 and if I can put the same number of passengers with this alignment (AGV, Velato etc.) 2+3 in Talgo isn't any advantage. Maybe this isn't seen in Spain where HS connections use new dedicated corridors or they run not so populated areas but those 2 power units are a complete waste of space and Avril was aimed at solving that problem. Particular example is class 730 which in 200 m length has 70 m wasted for propulsion purposes - although useful those trains are highly ineffective and somehow sum up Spain’s overspending. I bet CAF could build something with similar parameters based on 121 series with under floor diesel engines... .
Well, it is an advantage for operational costs and cost per seat. As comfort is not affected, it should cause some reduction of travel fares. I agree with you, and the dedicated locos are a waste of space, but as far as already an Avril G3 has more seats than a TGV Duplex, it is not that bad. But I agree with you, still there is lot of work to be done.

The class 730 is a really particular case for not really populated corridors with not extremely competitive travel times. So, it is the cheapest solution for a temporary problem at the same time that it improves travel times and makes easier the trip. For sure, it is not a good design, it is just about optimizing. Developing a completely new train would have been extremely more expensive. In this particular case, the government hasn't overspent, but mostly the oppsosite: improving the former services in the cheapest way.

Quote:
Already mature markets have established suppliers so the only way for Talgo is to go on new markets which as I said earlier may be interested in cheaper train set with 2+3 arrangement than complicated "space shuttle"
Yes, that's why introducing Talgos in France, Germany or Italy would be extremely complicated. Maybe the only way of saying them in those countries would be through international services coming from other countries. Anyway, here we have another big obstacle: authorizing different rolling stock in different countries. With an unique European agency for that purpose, it would be much easier to use different trains in different countries.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexNL View Post
I've sat in the Avril and while it does have 2+3 seating, it definitely does not feel cramped at all. The train on display at InnoTrans felt spacious, the seats were wide enough for me (a Dutchman) to sit in. The seat pitch was good as well. The car body is lower than that of an average HST, this is how Talgo could make the body wider while still being able to fit the body in the regular UIC-GC loading gauge.

I hope Talgo will be able to find an operator for these trains to run outside of Spain as well.
It is not about the height of the car body, but about its length. As it shorter, you can make the body wider. Furthermore, the suspension has been improved by a new system which centers more the car on the track, avoiding swinging, which allows even wider volumes.

I've translated the explanation of a Spanish forumer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gusiluz View Post
One of the main innovations of Avril, at least of the G3, is the possibility of a "wide body" design; depedning on versions, outer width can be 2,9 or 3,2 m.

While, trains with UIC gauge (or Renfe gauge, which is 15 cm larger), have generically a outer width around 2,95 m for conventional trainsets (coaches with a length up to 26 m and distance between bogies around 18 m), articulated coaches with a legth of 13,14 m can get an outer width up to 3,2 m, calles "wide body".


There are other wide bodies, up to 3,45 m, but with a different gauge: Russian, Chinese of Japanese.

This way, with European or UIC gauge, this is an innovation of Talgo, but not of Avril itself. The Talgo III, with a length of coaches of 11,1 m, had already a outer width of 3,2 m. This width couldn't be kept on Talgo IV series because of the reduction of width in the lower part of the body induces natural tilting. Besides, Talgo IV needed to get adapted to UIC gauge, while Talgo III kept Renfe gauge, a bit larger.

Comparing with the double deck coaches (whose cost and space advantages are qualitatively similar; 509 seats in the first trainsets, later 545 and 560 seats), wide body coaches got the advantage of avoiding the lost of inner space because of stairs (which affect to both levels), a better accesibiltiy, and a quicker movement of passengers getting in and out. Both option are compatible at the same time, as in the Japanese E4 max, which got a wide body, double deck and distributed engines, for fitting up to 817 seats just in a single train of 201 m

An Avril G3 in 12 coaches layout (200,25 m long), only tourist class 2+3 with cafeteria would fit 590 seats + 2 for handicaped; while a TGV Ouigo only tourist class without cafeteria, is able to fit 634 seats within a 200,19 m long train, with a larger affected surface and a high sensibility to lateral winds.



Images of Patentes Talgo
__________________

dirdam, SAS 16 liked this post
Reivajar no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 27th, 2014, 02:13 PM   #2579
Richard_P
Registered User
 
Richard_P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Sesame Street
Posts: 4,800
Likes (Received): 2585

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexNL View Post
I've sat in the Avril and while it does have 2+3 seating, it definitely does not feel cramped at all. The train on display at InnoTrans felt spacious, the seats were wide enough for me (a Dutchman) to sit in. The seat pitch was good as well. The car body is lower than that of an average HST, this is how Talgo could make the body wider while still being able to fit the body in the regular UIC-GC loading gauge.
Talgo with 3,2 m wide car is 40 cm wider than regular car and as typical seat is 45-48 cm wide You can put 2+3 without any difference. The only problem is how passengers will react at that.

Regarding clearance, width doesn't make any difference and from GA to GC it is the same, the only differences are in height. So how come Talgo fitted extra wide cars Reivajar explained. But other suppliers also made some effort to maximum use. For example AGV has a bit shorter cars so that 2,95 m wide was possible while standard is at 2,8 m. The same was made by Bombardier with Transilien where it has 3,06 m wide cars. Interesting is also OBB 2 class modularwagen in which boogies distance was shortened from 19 to 18,5 m allowing 2,95 m wide car although car ends had to be made narrower.

The low floor in Talgo positioned at 760 mm above rail can be positive but it also can be disadvantage. For example on 1520 mm gauge network platform high is either at rail level or is at 1150 mm above rail thus Talgo won't fit to any of this standards. Regarding other markets in Germany and Austria platform on 760 mm is located further away from track centre thus ICE1 with conventional cars is 3,02 m wide while in latest ICx cars will be 2,8 m wide but extremely long at 28 m (over two Talgo cars!).

Thanks to this 200m train will have only 7 cars instead of 8 in ICE3 and this means that 2 vestibules and one car joint goes away making additional 6 m of space available for use. there are plenty of solutions to chose before we decide to go for 2+3 arrangement.
Richard_P no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 27th, 2014, 02:49 PM   #2580
Reivajar
__________
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 12,081
Likes (Received): 3340

I agree with you about the problem on floor heights and platforms height topic. It is not uniform around Europe, and Talgo in this sense is really oriented for Spain.

As far as it is working in Spain, getting into a Talgo is far better than any other train. As well, you have the funny situation with TGV Duplex running on Spain whose floor height in the doors is slightly lower than the new Spanish standard platform.

I am not sure, but the distance to the center of the rail is a problem easier to be solver, as you can add some kind of hydraulic ramp or extension in front of the door. I think I've seen something similar in some RER high trains in Paris.
Reivajar no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
adif, ave, high speed rail, spain in the world, valencia, zaragoza

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 09:35 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