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 7th, 2012, 07:39 PM   #301
loefet
Registered User
 
loefet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Göteborg
Posts: 525
Likes (Received): 233

That would be a theoretical minimum radius with 12% banking of the track. They could theoretically bank the track to 16% to further decrease the radii of the turn, but German law apparently stopped from happening (in Germany anyway).
Can't find anything about the JR Maglev though, even after looking at the RTRI web page.
Anyone know the smallest radii on the proposed route??

The TGV and newer Shinkansen lines are built with around 4000 meters as a smallest radii for travel up to 320 km/h, compared to the 7000 meters the Chinese do. But considering the scale between the countries (distance they have to cover between large city's) then it is a lot more important for the Chinese to allow as high speed as possible and future proof the system...
loefet no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old February 7th, 2012, 07:59 PM   #302
bluemeansgo
Registered User
 
bluemeansgo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 451
Likes (Received): 124

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxmulder View Post
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.
Isn't the Mag-lev supposed to be a 10,000m radius? I've seen that around and I believe it was the curve radius of the test track.

TGV's lines since 1981 have been 4,000m.
Shinkansen is minimum 4000m (except parts of Tokaido line which are 2,500m)
HSR in California is supposed to be 6,500m

Not sure the turn radius on the Tohoku line, but it was planned to be 360km/h. Curve radius wasn't a factor in limiting the speed. Excessive wear on the pantographs and rail as well as noise lowered that speed to 320km/h.

Last edited by bluemeansgo; February 7th, 2012 at 08:04 PM.
bluemeansgo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 7th, 2012, 09:35 PM   #303
quashlo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 14,835
Likes (Received): 3215

Standard for the Yamanashi test track is 8,000 m:
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpo...&postcount=181
__________________
San Francisco
Japan 2013; Japan 2011
: Tōkyō I, II, III (Kamakura), IV (Yokohama), V; Ōsaka I (+Kyōto +Kōbe), II (Kyōto), III (Nara); Hiroshima; Fukuoka; Nagasaki; Kita-Kyushu + Shimonoseki; Nikkō
quashlo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 8th, 2012, 01:50 AM   #304
foxmulder
Registered User
 
foxmulder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,135
Likes (Received): 382

So, they are possibly going even higher than 7000m what China has, with 8000m which is what I find logical and expect since maglev will be going 500km/h.
foxmulder no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 8th, 2012, 03:41 PM   #305
SamuraiBlue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,232
Likes (Received): 195

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxmulder View Post
So, they are possibly going even higher than 7000m what China has, with 8000m which is what I find logical and expect since maglev will be going 500km/h.
No, JR Central is anticipating on going faster than the 500Km/h mark. That is not possible at the moment with with such a short track. It also consumes roughly two to three times the amount of energy compared to a N700 traveling at 285Km/h. They also anticipate on lowering that utilizing more efficient electronic components.
JR Central can also super elevate the coils on one side creating a magnetic bank so the train can turn on tighter curves.
SamuraiBlue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 8th, 2012, 03:44 PM   #306
gramercy
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 4,823
Likes (Received): 799

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuraiBlue View Post
JR Central can also super elevate the coils on one side creating a magnetic bank so the train can turn on tighter curves.
i was just about to say that, just because maglev doesn't have traditional tracks to be tilted in the corner nor can it have tilting bogies, it can still have its magnets aligned in such a manner
gramercy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 8th, 2012, 06:16 PM   #307
foxmulder
Registered User
 
foxmulder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,135
Likes (Received): 382

You guys are missing my point. If they want they can go mach 5. The point is passenger should feel almost nothing during turns. That's all. I pointed this out because it is claimed maglev can be cheaper in rough geography due to having possibly smaller turn radius. Well, it cannot really have a significantly smaller turn radius that will affect the cost since turn radius mainly determined by passenger comfort. If you want to go fast you need bigger turn radius for a comfortable ride, doesn't matter whether you are in a car, train, maglev, airliner or spaceship.
foxmulder no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 8th, 2012, 07:04 PM   #308
trainrover
:-x
 
trainrover's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,787
Likes (Received): 738

Nonetheless, wouldn't 'proofing' against recurring G forces be costly for both stationary and moving equipment?
__________________
.
hee hee
.
trainrover no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 8th, 2012, 07:04 PM   #309
hmmwv
Registered User
 
hmmwv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,391
Likes (Received): 420

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuraiBlue View Post
JR Central can also super elevate the coils on one side creating a magnetic bank so the train can turn on tighter curves.
The Shanghai line is heavily tilted in corners.
hmmwv no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 8th, 2012, 07:46 PM   #310
loefet
Registered User
 
loefet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Göteborg
Posts: 525
Likes (Received): 233

Two different kind of Maglev systems, the Transrapid one is limited to the banking of the track where as the JR system is more dynamic and can tilt depending on speed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxmulder View Post
You guys are missing my point. If they want they can go mach 5. The point is passenger should feel almost nothing during turns. That's all. I pointed this out because it is claimed maglev can be cheaper in rough geography due to having possibly smaller turn radius. Well, it cannot really have a significantly smaller turn radius that will affect the cost since turn radius mainly determined by passenger comfort. If you want to go fast you need bigger turn radius for a comfortable ride, doesn't matter whether you are in a car, train, maglev, airliner or spaceship.
I understand your point, it's not like it will be a roller-coaster which uses the same principles as any train. Banking a train more will decrease the lateral force and replace that with a downward force. Tighter radii at high speed require steeper banking which in it's term would give higher vertical force load on the passenger. However Transrapid can have tighter turns compared to wheeled rail since it have no chance of derailing which could happen if you were to put a normal train through the same turn at the same speed. So yes a Maglev (at least Transrapid) can go through tighter turns than normal HSR. Maglev (Transrapid again) also have another party piece that helps with the design through rough terrain, it can climb much steeper slopes (10% at 250 km/h) compared to wheeled trains, and it don't require any special designs to cope with objects up to 20 meters tall or 25 meters wide, since that is already built into the track system. If you were to build a standard HSR line through that terrain, then it would require tunnels, bridges, massive cuts through hills, etc.
A really good example of this would be the infamous Hallandsås tunnel (Hallandsås Tunnel). Initial cost for the tunnel were 1 billion SEK and was due to open in 1995, the cost at the moment is more like 12 billion SEK and opening will be 2015 "hopefully". A maglev line would go straight over that ridge without a problem. Guess which option would be cheaper??
loefet no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 8th, 2012, 08:01 PM   #311
trainrover
:-x
 
trainrover's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,787
Likes (Received): 738

You're right: Building a network without any failsafe measure would be excessively and, thus, prohibitively cheap.
__________________
.
hee hee
.
trainrover no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 8th, 2012, 08:11 PM   #312
lkstrknb
Chicago Luke
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 445
Likes (Received): 804

Quote:
Originally Posted by hmmwv View Post
The Shanghai line is heavily tilted in corners.
It sure is!!

image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr
lkstrknb no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 9th, 2012, 03:55 AM   #313
lkstrknb
Chicago Luke
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 445
Likes (Received): 804

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuraiBlue View Post
It also consumes roughly two to three times the amount of energy compared to a N700 traveling at 285Km/h. They also anticipate on lowering that utilizing more efficient electronic components.
JR Central can also super elevate the coils on one side creating a magnetic bank so the train can turn on tighter curves.
So the JR Maglev consumes two to three times the energy when it is traveling 500km/h than a N700 traveling at 285km/h? So how much energy is consumed by the JR Maglev going 285km/h

I always thought maglevs were more efficient than traditional trains, but your post confused me.

Luke
lkstrknb no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 9th, 2012, 06:34 AM   #314
castermaild55
Registered User
 
castermaild55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 4,215
Likes (Received): 3060

Quote:
Originally Posted by quashlo View Post
Project-level maglev alignment and stations revealed: Part 2

Station locations

Kanagawa Prefecture
Location: Sagamihara City
Engineering feasibility: Underground station is feasible in Sagamihara City’s Midori Ward or Chūō Ward, where the line would intersect existing railways.
Convenience:
(Rail) In close proximity to existing stations on the JR Yokohama Line, JR Sagami Line, and Keiō Sagamihara Line.
(Road) Easy access to the Ken’ō Expressway (Sagami Through Road) expected to open in the future.
Environmental impact: As the station would be underground, there would be no impacts to sunlight, aesthetics, etc.
Land acquisition: In addition to urbanization and developed residential areas surrounding existing railways, there are large-scale retail facilities and a U.S. Army depot. Securing land for station plazas and other facilities may be difficult.



Yamanashi Prefecture
Location: Southern part of Kōfu Basin (Kyōchū area)
Engineering feasibility: Station and a continuous aerial structure approaching the station, approx. 20 m tall, are feasible on the flat terrain of the southern part of the Kōfu Basin between the Fuefuki River and Kamanashi River.
Convenience:
(Rail) In close proximity to existing stations on the JR Minobu Line.
(Road) In close proximity to existing ramps on the Shin-Yamanashi Loop Road.
Environmental impact: Minimization of environmental impacts is necessary, such as limiting the height of the aerial structure as much as possible.
Land acquisition: The area consists primarily of agricultural land, but as a portion of the areas are already urbanized, integration with station area improvements and securing land for station plazas and other facilities may be difficult.



Gifu Prefecture
Location: Western Nakatsugawa City
Engineering feasibility: Aboveground station (approx. 20 m in elevation) is possible parallel to the JR Chūō Line in western Nakatsugawa City.
Convenience:
(Rail) In close proximity to existing stations on the JR Chūō Line.
(Road) Easy access to the Chūō Expressway.
Environmental impact: Minimization of environmental impacts is necessary, such as limiting the height of the aerial structure as much as possible.
Land acquisition: The area consists primarily of agricultural land.



Also mentioned explicitly in the EIS:
Shinagawa Station would be a “north-south” alignment, while Nagoya Station would be an “east-west” alignment to allow for easy connections with the Tōkaidō Shinkansen and conventional lines and make the second phase (extension to Ōsaka) easier.
How many tunnels are dug?
The time to be in a tunnel is longer?
castermaild55 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 9th, 2012, 07:41 PM   #315
quashlo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 14,835
Likes (Received): 3215

Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if a good portion of the trip is dark outside. I didn't do any calculation, but I think we can definitely get 25% to 30% in tunnels, maybe even higher. For comparison:

I'm actually surprised how much of San’yō Shinkansen is tunnel!

Tōkaidō Shinkansen (Tōkyō ↔ Shin-Ōsaka)
Earth (cut, embankment, etc.): 53%
Bridge: 11%
Viaduct: 22%
Tunnel: 13%

San’yō Shinkansen (Shin-Ōsaka ↔ Hakata)
Earth (cut, embankment, etc.): 12%
Bridge: 9%
Viaduct: 28%
Tunnel: 50%

Kyūshū Shinkansen (Hakata ↔ Shin-Yatsushiro)
Earth (cut, embankment, etc.): 5%
Bridge: 14%
Viaduct: 51%
Tunnel: 30%

Kyūshū Shinkansen (Shin-Yatsushiro ↔ Kagoshima Chūō)
Earth (cut, embankment, etc.): 12%
Bridge: 7%
Viaduct: 12%
Tunnel: 69%

Tōhoku Shinkansen (Tōkyō ↔ Morioka)
Earth (cut, embankment, etc.): 5%
Bridge: 16%
Viaduct: 56%
Tunnel: 23%

Tōhoku Shinkansen (Morioka ↔ Hachinohe)
Earth (cut, embankment, etc.): 14%
Bridge: 4%
Viaduct: 9%
Tunnel: 73%

Tōhoku Shinkansen (Hachinohe ↔ Shin-Aomori)
Earth (cut, embankment, etc.): 15%
Bridge: 5%
Viaduct: 18%
Tunnel: 62%

Jōetsu Shinkansen (Ōmiya ↔ Niigata)
Earth (cut, embankment, etc.): 1%
Bridge: 11%
Viaduct: 49%
Tunnel: 39%

Hokuriku Shinkansen (Takasaki ↔ Nagano)
Earth (cut, embankment, etc.): 15%
Bridge: 9%
Viaduct: 25%
Tunnel: 51%

Hokuriku Shinkansen (Nagano ↔ Kanazawa)
Earth (cut, embankment, etc.): 2%
Bridge: 10%
Viaduct: 44%
Tunnel: 44%
__________________
San Francisco
Japan 2013; Japan 2011
: Tōkyō I, II, III (Kamakura), IV (Yokohama), V; Ōsaka I (+Kyōto +Kōbe), II (Kyōto), III (Nara); Hiroshima; Fukuoka; Nagasaki; Kita-Kyushu + Shimonoseki; Nikkō
quashlo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2012, 01:35 AM   #316
Sopomon
Hideous and malformed
 
Sopomon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 870
Likes (Received): 153

Quote:
Originally Posted by quashlo View Post
Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if a good portion of the trip is dark outside. I didn't do any calculation, but I think we can definitely get 25% to 30% in tunnels, maybe even higher.
I may be wrong, but I was lead to believe that the % of tunnels on the Chuo line would be close to 80-90%, from looking at the route planning maps...
Can anyone clear that up for me?
__________________
And he kicked so many rosebushes at her that eventually, Sasuke turned into a log.
Sopomon no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2012, 03:55 AM   #317
quashlo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 14,835
Likes (Received): 3215

Yeah, I think you're right... My memory must be failing me. I just pulled that out of a hat since I figured the number would, at the very least, be in between Tōkaidō and San'yō.

Now I seem to remember the number 70% being thrown around.
__________________
San Francisco
Japan 2013; Japan 2011
: Tōkyō I, II, III (Kamakura), IV (Yokohama), V; Ōsaka I (+Kyōto +Kōbe), II (Kyōto), III (Nara); Hiroshima; Fukuoka; Nagasaki; Kita-Kyushu + Shimonoseki; Nikkō
quashlo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2012, 10:28 AM   #318
Sopomon
Hideous and malformed
 
Sopomon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 870
Likes (Received): 153

Quote:
Originally Posted by quashlo View Post
Yeah, I think you're right... My memory must be failing me. I just pulled that out of a hat since I figured the number would, at the very least, be in between Tōkaidō and San'yō.

Now I seem to remember the number 70% being thrown around.
It's a shame, I'd love to see it more often above ground, it'd be such an impressive sight.
__________________
And he kicked so many rosebushes at her that eventually, Sasuke turned into a log.
Sopomon no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2012, 08:24 PM   #319
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): 10750

Yes 70% will be in tunnels.
__________________
🌸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 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2012, 11:36 PM   #320
trainrover
:-x
 
trainrover's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,787
Likes (Received): 738

Might that high share of tunneling stem from the intended high radial minimum (approx 10KM)? I.e., might that high minimum be too restrictive when it come to altering the elevation over comparatively short line, route segments? Or might that 10KM minimum be for lateral radii only?
__________________
.
hee hee
.
trainrover 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 04:34 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