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 1st, 2012, 12:18 AM   #281
Munwon
Registered User
 
Munwon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Busan
Posts: 3,501
Likes (Received): 3256

Wow! I had no idea Japan was still going ahead with this project
Munwon no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old February 1st, 2012, 03:54 AM   #282
ukiyo
スーパーモデレーターSuper Moderator
 
ukiyo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: 大阪府 Ōsaka
Posts: 7,245
Likes (Received): 10785

Quote:
Originally Posted by Munwon View Post
Wow! I had no idea Japan was still going ahead with this project
The government approved it June 2011, and the test track is currently being extended (to be finished in 2013) which will be a section of the Maglev line.
__________________
🌸My Pictures: Tokyo, Tokyo 2, Kobe, Kamakura, Osaka, Kyoto, Nara, Himeji, Atlanta, China
🌸Japan Forum 日本フォーラム please stop by!
🌸浮世🌸
ukiyo está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old February 1st, 2012, 03:05 PM   #283
hmmwv
Registered User
 
hmmwv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,391
Likes (Received): 420

When the line becomes operational it will probably become the single most significant advancement of HSR since the introduction of the 0 Series Shinkansen.
hmmwv no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 1st, 2012, 07:58 PM   #284
lkstrknb
Chicago Luke
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 446
Likes (Received): 804

It will be interesting to compare the Japanese High Speed Maglev with the German Transrapid High Speed Maglev when this is operational. I feel the Transrapid maglev currently operating on a very short (30 KM) track in Shanghai China looks better and has a smaller profile. The Japanese maglev seems better suited for tunnels while the Shanghai one is better for elevated track.

Does anyone know numbers on how economical the two systems are to build and run.

Doesn't the Japanese system require the entire track to be supercooled to run?

Any thoughts?

Luke
lkstrknb no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 1st, 2012, 08:00 PM   #285
lkstrknb
Chicago Luke
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 446
Likes (Received): 804

Ok, just the active magnets on the entire track has to be supercooled. Not the concrete, of course.
lkstrknb no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 1st, 2012, 08:36 PM   #286
hmmwv
Registered User
 
hmmwv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,391
Likes (Received): 420

I sure hope Chuo Shinkansen is more comfortable than Transrapid, that thing shakes like crazy in turns even at 300km/h, a lot less comfortable than most CRH trains at the same speed.
hmmwv no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 1st, 2012, 11:15 PM   #287
loefet
Registered User
 
loefet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Göteborg
Posts: 525
Likes (Received): 233

Quote:
Originally Posted by lkstrknb View Post
It will be interesting to compare the Japanese High Speed Maglev with the German Transrapid High Speed Maglev when this is operational. I feel the Transrapid maglev currently operating on a very short (30 KM) track in Shanghai China looks better and has a smaller profile. The Japanese maglev seems better suited for tunnels while the Shanghai one is better for elevated track.
The main difference between them though is the air-gaps between the rail and car. The JR system have large gap (several centimetres) which is great for a country like Japan that have earthquakes on a regular basis, the system is also magnetically stable which keeps the train centred in the track without any regulations. The Transrapid system (and several others) on the other hand have tiny gaps and is magnetically unstable so it requires constant regulation to keep the train where it's supposed to be, but the main upside to this system, compared to the JR one, is the much lower magnetic fields is required to make it work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lkstrknb View Post
Does anyone know numbers on how economical the two systems are to build and run.
This is a hard one, the construction costs of the Chuo Shinkansen are nearly astronomical compared to other rail projects. The building of the Transrapid one in China was also pretty expensive. However, the numbers that are used for these projects aren't really comparable to be used as a guide for other projects. First of all the Chuo line is built in Japan, most of it is underground (due to noise/cost of land acquisition), they have to design it to withstand several different natural extremities (earthquakes, typhoons, etc.) (which other places don't in the same extent). The Pudong link is built on soft clay which in itself is a challenge to build anything on.
Talking in general terms of cost (just taking into account the Transrapid like systems, due to that the JR one is less likely to be built anywhere else than in Japan), then Max Bögel (the ones that build Transrapid lines) have reduced manufacturing costs by more than 25% since they built the Pudong link, the beams and supports use less materials in all, Transrapid can cope with tighter turn radius and steeper hills than normal HSR, which makes it easier to build around obstacles instead of through them which makes them cheaper. So building a Transrapid line or a HSR line doesn't really matter they cost more or less the same, it all depends on what kind of natural barriers you have to consider(flat=HSR cheaper, medium or hilly train = Maglev cheaper).
Maintenance costs on the other hand then Maglev is the obvious choice, since they have much less moving parts or other parts that wear out/breaks then this cost is just a fraction compared to any other wheeled rail. So even if a Maglev line would be more expensive to build then you might earn back that money after a number of years by reduced maintenance costs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lkstrknb View Post
Doesn't the Japanese system require the entire track to be supercooled to run?
No, the plates on the sides only houses coils to create a magnetic field. The magnets in the bogies on the other hand are cooled by liquid Nitrogen/Helium. It would be far to expensive to cool the whole track.
loefet no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 2nd, 2012, 02:20 AM   #288
ukiyo
スーパーモデレーターSuper Moderator
 
ukiyo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: 大阪府 Ōsaka
Posts: 7,245
Likes (Received): 10785

Quote:
Originally Posted by hmmwv View Post
I sure hope Chuo Shinkansen is more comfortable than Transrapid, that thing shakes like crazy in turns even at 300km/h, a lot less comfortable than most CRH trains at the same speed.
I used the Shanghai maglev last year (you are talking about the airport line right?) and it was incredibly shaky, I thought something was wrong.

The Chuo maglev seems to not shake at all, here is a video from inside the cabin



Go to 1:50

Also I strongly believe the top operating speed will be above 505 kmh advertised. Right now they are extending the test track (which will be a part of the total line) and will run tests with the L0 series Shinkansen which will be the train used in service. Maybe we can expect a new world record with the extended track . If not with the L0 series, I am sure the "L1" series or whatever they decide to call the next model will have a higher speed, the potential for maglev in tunnels with such a long distance is much higher than 505 kmh I believe.
__________________
🌸My Pictures: Tokyo, Tokyo 2, Kobe, Kamakura, Osaka, Kyoto, Nara, Himeji, Atlanta, China
🌸Japan Forum 日本フォーラム please stop by!
🌸浮世🌸

Last edited by ukiyo; February 2nd, 2012 at 05:30 AM.
ukiyo está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old February 2nd, 2012, 03:44 AM   #289
foxmulder
Registered User
 
foxmulder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,135
Likes (Received): 382

Loving this. I think for the future, maglev + vacuum tubes are real options.
foxmulder no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 2nd, 2012, 07:01 AM   #290
Silly_Walks
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,980
Likes (Received): 836

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxmulder View Post
Loving this. I think for the future, maglev + vacuum tubes are real options.
Maybe if Japan covers the maglev bits that aren't in tunnels, they will already be able to do that
Silly_Walks no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 2nd, 2012, 06:59 PM   #291
hmmwv
Registered User
 
hmmwv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,391
Likes (Received): 420

And it doesn't necessarily have to be a true vacuum tube, a tunnel with reduced air density will go a long way to help reduce drag. I think with tweaking they can get the train to go as fast as Mach 0.8.
hmmwv no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 4th, 2012, 05:03 AM   #292
lkstrknb
Chicago Luke
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 446
Likes (Received): 804

Thanks loefet for your information about maglev costs from China and Japan. I really hope high speed (and low speed) maglev is adopted more widely around the world. Everyone, for good reason, is scared of the high sticker price of maglev, but they should be even more alarmed about the extremely high ongoing maintenance and operating costs of conventional high speed rail.

Luke
lkstrknb no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 4th, 2012, 12:52 PM   #293
Silver Swordsman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 371
Likes (Received): 101

Speaking of maglevs, has anyone considered using a solenoid hybrid? As in, using traditional supermagnets to levitate the trains (which is cheaper), and then use a separate solenoid (linear induction motor) to move the train. It should be cheaper than configuring all the magnets along the route to reverse polarities back and forth. Regenerative braking can also be applied that way as well.
Silver Swordsman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 4th, 2012, 06:18 PM   #294
ukiyo
スーパーモデレーターSuper Moderator
 
ukiyo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: 大阪府 Ōsaka
Posts: 7,245
Likes (Received): 10785

It will be propelled with a linear motor, I am not sure about the "induction" part.. Though according to this: http://www.maglev.ir/eng/documents/p...011/PLE-01.pdf several subways in Japan are using a linear induction motor as well as the maglev.
__________________
🌸My Pictures: Tokyo, Tokyo 2, Kobe, Kamakura, Osaka, Kyoto, Nara, Himeji, Atlanta, China
🌸Japan Forum 日本フォーラム please stop by!
🌸浮世🌸

Last edited by ukiyo; February 4th, 2012 at 06:23 PM.
ukiyo está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old February 6th, 2012, 05:34 PM   #295
Vanzetti
go away
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 115
Likes (Received): 8

Quote:
Originally Posted by hmmwv View Post
And it doesn't necessarily have to be a true vacuum tube, a tunnel with reduced air density will go a long way to help reduce drag. I think with tweaking they can get the train to go as fast as Mach 0.8.
Except that for evacuated tube you'll need an air-tight train. An entire new train, in other words.
__________________
Buildings are like clothes. People live in them. Without people, they have no meaning. We have ancient clothes in museums, but the idea that all old clothes should be preserved is absurd.
Vanzetti no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 6th, 2012, 06:02 PM   #296
foxmulder
Registered User
 
foxmulder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,135
Likes (Received): 382

Quote:
Originally Posted by loefet View Post
The main difference between them though is the air-gaps between the rail and car. The JR system have large gap (several centimetres) which is great for a country like Japan that have earthquakes on a regular basis, the system is also magnetically stable which keeps the train centred in the track without any regulations. The Transrapid system (and several others) on the other hand have tiny gaps and is magnetically unstable so it requires constant regulation to keep the train where it's supposed to be, but the main upside to this system, compared to the JR one, is the much lower magnetic fields is required to make it work.

This is a hard one, the construction costs of the Chuo Shinkansen are nearly astronomical compared to other rail projects. The building of the Transrapid one in China was also pretty expensive. However, the numbers that are used for these projects aren't really comparable to be used as a guide for other projects. First of all the Chuo line is built in Japan, most of it is underground (due to noise/cost of land acquisition), they have to design it to withstand several different natural extremities (earthquakes, typhoons, etc.) (which other places don't in the same extent). The Pudong link is built on soft clay which in itself is a challenge to build anything on.
Talking in general terms of cost (just taking into account the Transrapid like systems, due to that the JR one is less likely to be built anywhere else than in Japan), then Max Bögel (the ones that build Transrapid lines) have reduced manufacturing costs by more than 25% since they built the Pudong link, the beams and supports use less materials in all, Transrapid can cope with tighter turn radius and steeper hills than normal HSR, which makes it easier to build around obstacles instead of through them which makes them cheaper. So building a Transrapid line or a HSR line doesn't really matter they cost more or less the same, it all depends on what kind of natural barriers you have to consider(flat=HSR cheaper, medium or hilly train = Maglev cheaper).
Maintenance costs on the other hand then Maglev is the obvious choice, since they have much less moving parts or other parts that wear out/breaks then this cost is just a fraction compared to any other wheeled rail. So even if a Maglev line would be more expensive to build then you might earn back that money after a number of years by reduced maintenance costs.


No, the plates on the sides only houses coils to create a magnetic field. The magnets in the bogies on the other hand are cooled by liquid Nitrogen/Helium. It would be far to expensive to cool the whole track.

Turning radius is limited mostly by passenger comfort. I hardly thing there will be any difference between a maglev and a conventional line when it comes to turn radius. That's why I dont think one can consider maglev line will be cheaper on a hilly landscape. So, my question is what is tightest turn on Pudong line and what's the speed there? We all know that turn radius in Chinese new lines are 7000m and the speed limit can reach 380km/h since that used to be the plan.
foxmulder no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 6th, 2012, 11:52 PM   #297
SamuraiBlue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,232
Likes (Received): 195

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxmulder View Post
Turning radius is limited mostly by passenger comfort. I hardly thing there will be any difference between a maglev and a conventional line when it comes to turn radius. That's why I dont think one can consider maglev line will be cheaper on a hilly landscape. So, my question is what is tightest turn on Pudong line and what's the speed there? We all know that turn radius in Chinese new lines are 7000m and the speed limit can reach 380km/h since that used to be the plan.
Actually this is wrong.
Conventional wheel on rail HSR's radius is limited to cant deficiency.

Quote:
For passenger traffic superelevations and authorized speeds can be set so that trains run with as much cant deficiency as is allowed, based on safety, on relevant regulations and on passenger comfort. As of 2007 the FRA regulations limit CD to 7.0 inches for tilting passenger vehicles, 3.0 inches for conventional vehicles.[citation needed] This FRA regulation is based on AAR standards based on a single study in the 1950's on a rail line in Connecticut.[citation needed] In Germany, where axle loads are typically lower than those in the USA, tilting trains are allowed to operate with 12.0 inches CD in some cases[citation needed].

Allowed CD is set below the value that would be allowed based on safety in order to reduce wheel and rail wear and to reduce the rate of degradation of geometry of ballasted track. Choice of design CD will be less constrained by passenger comfort in the case of vehicles that have tilting capability. One historical approach to determining safe cant deficiency was the requirement that the projection to the plane of the track of the resultant of the centrifugal and gravitational forces acting on a vehicle fall within the middle third of the track gauge. Contemporary engineering studies would likely use vehicle motion simulation including cross wind conditions to determine margins relative to derailment and rollover.
If it was based totally on passenger comfort then trains with tilt mechanism would not be marketed. Passenger feels less discomfort when tracks are superelevated since they will feel less lateral momentum.
SamuraiBlue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 7th, 2012, 04:59 AM   #298
foxmulder
Registered User
 
foxmulder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,135
Likes (Received): 382

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuraiBlue View Post
Actually this is wrong.
Conventional wheel on rail HSR's radius is limited to cant deficiency.
I am not sure you know what cant deficiency means.

Allowed cant deficiency depends on which country you are in (what does this tell you?) and it is based on factors including passenger comfort.
foxmulder no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 7th, 2012, 03:28 PM   #299
loefet
Registered User
 
loefet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Göteborg
Posts: 525
Likes (Received): 233

You can say that Cant-Deficiency is a number that helps you define how fast you are allowed to go in a turn before before passengers start to feel discomforted due to high lateral forces.

The shape of the wheels of a train also defines on how fast it's allowed to ride through a turn. The ride surface is conical so that trains are able to around turns with the help of lateral displacement without damaging the axles of the train (the outer wheel travels further than the inner one). A very conical wheel can go through tight turns, but starts to hunt when the speed increase. A HSR wheel have a slight conical shape to reduce the hunting issue at higher speeds, and due to the slight conical shape then the difference in distance of the inner and outer wheels must be very similar which require a big turn radius. There are also other factors to take into consideration, you can't bank a track as much as you like if you have a mixed traffic on the line, etc.

The Transrapid system can bank a track much further but is still bound by the banking of the track, but going slow on in a fast tight turn might still cause discomfort for the passengers in the long run. The JR Maglev don't have this problem since the banking of the train is dynamic. They don't need to build much banking into the system since the gap between the train and "track" is so wide that they can bank the train dynamically depending on the speed they are running in turns etc. (high speed = bank the train more, low speed = bank the train less), which give them more options to build tighter turns and then bank the train accordingly for passenger comfort.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxmulder View Post
So, my question is what is tightest turn on Pudong line and what's the speed there? We all know that turn radius in Chinese new lines are 7000m and the speed limit can reach 380km/h since that used to be the plan.
Looking on the German Wikipedia page about Transrapid (Source) then it says that the minimum turn radius at 400 km/h is 3415 meters, which is a lot tighter than any wheeled system.
loefet no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 7th, 2012, 06:02 PM   #300
foxmulder
Registered User
 
foxmulder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,135
Likes (Received): 382

Quote:
Originally Posted by loefet View Post
Looking on the German Wikipedia page about Transrapid (Source) then it says that the minimum turn radius at 400 km/h is 3415 meters, which is a lot tighter than any wheeled system.
Is this a theoretical number or what they have on Pudong line? Do you have any info on JR Maglev's tightest turn radius?

Also, we should keep in mind that 7000m has chosen by Chinese mostly for future proofing, added safety and comfort. I think this number theoretical can be lower.
foxmulder no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

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 02:12 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