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 10th, 2013, 11:22 PM   #441
Silly_Walks
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,980
Likes (Received): 836

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruston View Post
My point is that conventional trains are already able to have accelerations of 0,97 m/s2 in actual service (1,3-1,45 in tests); maglev probabily could have much bigger accelerations that however could not be used for comfort reasons.
How much G would 1.3 to 1.45 m/s2 be?
Silly_Walks no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old January 11th, 2013, 02:28 AM   #442
Hegemonic
Registered User
 
Hegemonic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 936
Likes (Received): 366

I have heard while maglev has been deceades in the making, it's only now that it is being commercialised due to wheel on steel technology reaching it's practical limits with speed and energy consumption.

Systems like this one, Bejing S1 and the Korean system are the first of many around the world to come online.

However, I have been told that the transition from conventional rail to maglev will be decades also.
Hegemonic no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 11th, 2013, 02:51 AM   #443
Sopomon
Hideous and malformed
 
Sopomon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 870
Likes (Received): 153

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hegemonic View Post
I have heard while maglev has been deceades in the making, it's only now that it is being commercialised due to wheel on steel technology reaching it's practical limits with speed and energy consumption.

Systems like this one, Bejing S1 and the Korean system are the first of many around the world to come online.

However, I have been told that the transition from conventional rail to maglev will be decades also.
Well, commercially at least. There have been testbeds for a very long time
__________________
And he kicked so many rosebushes at her that eventually, Sasuke turned into a log.
Sopomon no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 11th, 2013, 03:04 AM   #444
SamuraiBlue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,232
Likes (Received): 195

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hegemonic View Post
I have heard while maglev has been deceades in the making, it's only now that it is being commercialised due to wheel on steel technology reaching it's practical limits with speed and energy consumption.

Systems like this one, Bejing S1 and the Korean system are the first of many around the world to come online.

However, I have been told that the transition from conventional rail to maglev will be decades also.
This is not totally correct.
The ones you mentioned are both conventional speed maglev like Linimo that had been in commercial usage for sometime. The strong points of conventional wheel on rail transit compared to conventional speed maglev is debatable which makes the conventional wheel on rail transit very much competitive in this speed range.
The JR high speed maglev only became commercially viable within the last decade due to various technological breakthroughs in metallurgy discovering a high temperature superconductive metallic material that can be easily pressed into form and retain it's superconductive properties above the -196℃ threshold eliminating the needs of liquid Helium which is costly compared to liquid Nitrogen.
SamuraiBlue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 11th, 2013, 04:51 PM   #445
loefet
Registered User
 
loefet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Göteborg
Posts: 525
Likes (Received): 233

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silly_Walks View Post
How much G would 1.3 to 1.45 m/s2 be?
It depends on where you are on Earth, since the gravitational acceleration varies with the latitude of the Earth, due to the fact that the Earth is thicker at the equator. More at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_acceleration
But you usually use the number 9.8 m/s2 as 1 g, so:
1.3m/s2 would be something like 0,133 g's
and 1.45 m/s2 would be 0,148 g's.
loefet no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 11th, 2013, 08:37 PM   #446
Silly_Walks
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,980
Likes (Received): 836

Quote:
Originally Posted by loefet View Post
It depends on where you are on Earth, since the gravitational acceleration varies with the latitude of the Earth, due to the fact that the Earth is thicker at the equator. More at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_acceleration
But you usually use the number 9.8 m/s2 as 1 g, so:
1.3m/s2 would be something like 0,133 g's
and 1.45 m/s2 would be 0,148 g's.
That doesn't sound like an uncomfortable amount... when do (lateral i think) G's become uncomfortable, and so what would be the maximum amount of acceleration (maglev or traditional) trains can use?
Silly_Walks no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 13th, 2013, 01:16 AM   #447
Ruston
Registered User
 
Ruston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,206
Likes (Received): 273

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silly_Walks View Post
That doesn't sound like an uncomfortable amount... when do (lateral i think) G's become uncomfortable, and so what would be the maximum amount of acceleration (maglev or traditional) trains can use?
Let we say that a commercial plane take off and lands around 2-2,4 m/s2 , thats absolutely not uncomfortable... but require to be seated with belts on...
Ruston no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 13th, 2013, 03:25 AM   #448
Hegemonic
Registered User
 
Hegemonic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 936
Likes (Received): 366

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruston View Post
Let we say that a commercial plane take off and lands around 2-2,4 m/s2 , thats absolutely not uncomfortable... but require to be seated with belts on...
Good point.

It's not the space shuttle.
Hegemonic no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 13th, 2013, 04:28 AM   #449
SamuraiBlue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,232
Likes (Received): 195

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruston View Post
Let we say that a commercial plane take off and lands around 2-2,4 m/s2 , thats absolutely not uncomfortable... but require to be seated with belts on...
A jet plane reaches 250Km/h from standstill within 4000m landing strip for take off. You do not need that kind of acceleration for a train.
SamuraiBlue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 13th, 2013, 04:44 AM   #450
flierfy
Registered User
 
flierfy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,886
Likes (Received): 296

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruston View Post
Let we say that a commercial plane take off and lands around 2-2,4 m/s2 , thats absolutely not uncomfortable... but require to be seated with belts on...
Maybe not for you. But for others it is. Any acceleration above 1,0 m/sē causes discomfort and indisposition for a significant number of people and will lead to complains. That is why high speed trains barely speed up with more than 0,5 m/sē.
__________________
Rippachtal.de
flierfy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 13th, 2013, 04:48 AM   #451
SamuraiBlue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,232
Likes (Received): 195

Quote:
Originally Posted by flierfy View Post
Maybe not for you. But for others it is. Any acceleration above 1,0 m/sē causes discomfort and indisposition for a significant number of people and will lead to complains. That is why high speed trains barely speed up with more than 0,5 m/sē.
Strange, there are many transit rail that exceeds 1.0m/sē some going as fast as 1.5m/sē. I guess you feel discomfort on those trains as well.

The only reason HSR does not accelerate faster is because the gear ratio is set for high speed not high acceleration.
SamuraiBlue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 13th, 2013, 06:41 AM   #452
Silly_Walks
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,980
Likes (Received): 836

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuraiBlue View Post
A jet plane reaches 250Km/h from standstill within 4000m landing strip for take off. You do not need that kind of acceleration for a train.
The question was not so much the need, but whether it was possible to have high acceleration without it becoming 'uncomfortable'.

I think it has been established by now that acceleration for Maglev can be higher than for steel wheel trains, without it being uncomfortable.
Now why would there be a need for this? Because this would allow quite a few stops, while still having a high average speed. The stops would increase the number of potential customers, which would of course bring in more money.
Silly_Walks no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 13th, 2013, 09:48 AM   #453
coth
pride leader
 
coth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Moscow
Posts: 21,679
Likes (Received): 6998

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruston View Post
My point is that conventional trains are already able to have accelerations of 0,97 m/s2 in actual service (1,3-1,45 in tests); maglev probabily could have much bigger accelerations that however could not be used for comfort reasons.
As Silly_Walks correctly noted it wasn't that you were point on. You were point on comfort.

My point was - even having lower, more comfortable, acceleration, maglev able to accelerate much longer than conventional train, which simply runs out of power very quick.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuraiBlue View Post
A jet plane reaches 250Km/h from standstill within 4000m landing strip for take off. You do not need that kind of acceleration for a train.
Formula 1 does much faster acceleration, but still remain on ground even at 400 kmph. It's all matter of aerodynamics. Plane's wings are made to fly. Car's spoilers are made to push it to the ground. That's why they called anti-wings. Maglev trains also controlled by magnets.
__________________
coth no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 13th, 2013, 10:25 AM   #454
SamuraiBlue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,232
Likes (Received): 195

@coth

Although I do not know what you are leading to, the principle of maglev and EMAL to launch fighter planes from an aircraft carrier are the same utilizing Electro-dynamic propulsion. The major difference is the amount of electricity they pour in and the frequency they use to power the repulsive electro-magnets.
SamuraiBlue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 13th, 2013, 10:41 AM   #455
coth
pride leader
 
coth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Moscow
Posts: 21,679
Likes (Received): 6998

I'm saying that it doesn't really matter how fast acceleration is, in reasonable limits of course. I'm saying that train can accelerate even faster than plane still remaining on the ground.
__________________
coth no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 25th, 2013, 11:37 PM   #456
quashlo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 14,835
Likes (Received): 3215

Details emerge regarding schedule for deep-underground segment of maglev through Nagoya
http://www.kentsu.co.jp/webnews/html...124300021.html

Quote:
 JR東海が計画しているリニア中央新幹線について、地下40㍍以深の大深度地下を利用した路線整備を協議する、関係行政機関などで構成する中部圏大深度地下使用協議会幹事会の初会合が23日、名古屋市内で開かれた。JR東海はこの幹事会で、着工に向けて必要な法的手続きの想定スケジュールを初めて提示した。環境影響評価準備書を秋ごろに関係自治体に提出し、大深度地下使用法に基づく事業概要書の送付を行い、2014年度以降に工事実施計画申請を国土交通大臣に出す。同申請の認可を経て大深度地下使用の申請・認可の手続きを進める。
 大深度地下は、地下40㍍以深で、支持地盤上面から10㍍以上深い地下。中京圏は市街化が進んでいるため、JR東海は大深度地下を利用してリニアを整備する。
 同社が提示した概略ルートでは、中部圏の25㌔程度が大深度地下使用法の対象地域を通過する。このうち大深度地下を使用してトンネルを整備する具体的な区間や延長、深度などは、2013年秋ごろをめどに提出する環境影響評価準備書で明らかにするとした。立坑の間隔は約5~10㌔になると説明。なお、中部圏のほか、首都圏でも大深度地下の使用を予定している。東京都で約20㌔、神奈川県で15~20㌔が対象となる可能性がある。
 リニア中央新幹線の総延長は約438㌔。東京都と名古屋市、大阪市を結ぶ予定で、東京都~名古屋市間は27年、東京~大阪間は45年の開業を目指している。概算事業費は9兆0300億円で、このうち工事費が約8兆3000億円を占める。
 現在、東京~名古屋間の環境影響評価に向けた調査を行っており、秋ごろをめどに環境影響評価準備書を提出する。
 同協議会は、国土交通省中部地方整備局が事務局を務め、国交省をはじめ総務省や環境省、中部管区警察局などの行政機関、愛知県と三重県などで構成している。首都圏の大深度地下使用協議会は31日に開く予定。
 大深度地下の使用認可が下りれば、中部地域では初の適用となる。全国では、兵庫県で07年度に大容量送水管、東京都で12年に外かく環状道路の整備事業に関連して大深度地下使用法の適用を認可した。
On 2013.01.23, JR Central held a meeting with stakeholder agencies to discuss how it plans to move forward with the proposed deep-underground (> 40 m belowground) segment of the maglev through Nagoya. This was the first meeting of a committee devoted to this topic, and was the first time that JR Central provided details regarding a specific project schedule for this segment of the line.

According to the railway, the environmental assessment(s) will be released to the stakeholder jurisdictions this fall, after which JR Central will apply for approvals under the 大深度地下使用法, beginning the process of application and approval of the construction plan with the MLIT starting in FY2014. Application of this law permits public-use projects to waive monetary compensation when digging underneath land they do not own, granted they are at least 40 m below the surface and 10 m below the upper layers supporting foundation piles.

Approximately 25 km of the line through the Chūbu Metropolitan Area will be built deep underground, the specific alignment of which will be revealed in the environmental assessments. In contrast, the segments in Tōkyō Prefecture and Kanagawa Prefecture are expected to be about 20 km and 15 to 20 km, respectively. Vertical shafts will be provided every 5 to 10 km.
__________________
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 January 26th, 2013, 02:54 AM   #457
Hegemonic
Registered User
 
Hegemonic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 936
Likes (Received): 366

What month does FY2014 start?
Hegemonic no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 26th, 2013, 08:20 AM   #458
SamuraiBlue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,232
Likes (Received): 195

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hegemonic View Post
What month does FY2014 start?
That will be April 2014
SamuraiBlue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 3rd, 2013, 07:18 AM   #459
quashlo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 14,835
Likes (Received): 3215

Nagoya Prefecture Archeological Society petitions JR Central to avoid historic ruins on maglev alignment
http://mainichi.jp/select/news/20130...40037000c.html

Quote:
 リニア中央新幹線を巡り、長野県考古学会(会田進会長)は、JR東海に対し、飯田市座光寺の奈良・平安時代の役所「伊那郡衙(ぐんが)」跡の恒川(ごんが)遺跡群をリニアの路線と駅から回避するよう求める要望書を提出した。要望を受けたJR東海の奥田純三・環境保全事務所所長は「環境影響評価(環境アセス)で適切に判断したい」としたが「駅の飯田線近接の要望との折り合いが難しくなる」と困惑していた。

 回避を求めたのはJR飯田線元善光寺駅南側の東西、南北とも約500メートルの範囲。会田会長は「伊那は東山道(とうさんどう)で東国へ入る玄関口で、ただの郡衙ではない。地域の歴史や文化は大事で長く後世に残さなければならない」と主張した。

 一方、奥田所長は取材に「リニア駅の飯田線の駅との近接の要望もある。仮に元善光寺駅をイメージすると折り合いが難しい状況になる」と述べた。

 県内で確認された古代の役所跡は伊那郡衙と諏訪郡衙(岡谷市)の2カ所だけ。遺跡周辺から日本最古の貨幣「富本銭」「和同開珎」が出土している。【石川宏】
The sites in question are the Gonga Ruins of the Ina District government offices during the Nara and Heian periods, located in Zakōji, Iida City, covering a 500 m by 500 m square on the south side of Moto-Zenkōji Station on the JR Iida Line. At the time, Ina was the gateway to Japan’s eastern provinces (via the Tōsandō).

Due to the proximity to the station, though, this may make it more difficult to secure adequate connections with the Iida Line.
__________________
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 23rd, 2013, 04:17 AM   #460
quashlo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 14,835
Likes (Received): 3215

PM Abe to offer maglev technology at meeting with Obama
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/politics/ne...htm?from=ylist

Quote:
 米国を訪問中の安倍首相は22日午後(日本時間23日未明)、ワシントンのホワイトハウスでオバマ大統領と就任後初めて会談する。

 首相は会談で、米国の高速鉄道整備計画に協力し、世界で唯一、日本が実用化段階にある「超電導リニアモーターカー」の技術を米側に提供する意向を表明する。複数の政府関係者が22日、明らかにした。米側も歓迎しており、会談で超電導リニアの米国建設に向けた基本合意を目指す。

 超電導リニアは、超電導による磁力で浮上し、陸上交通機関最速の時速500キロ超で高速走行するもので、JR東海などが開発を進めている。米国への協力については、日本側から、第三国への移転を禁じることなどを条件に技術提供し、米側が建設主体となる予定。日本の国際協力銀行(JBIC)が建設資金を融資することなども検討されている。
__________________
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


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 06:48 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