SkyscraperCity banner

1 - 20 of 37 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
26 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hello all,

what do you think which train is the most advanced in technology? Shinkansen of course are many different types, just take the most advanced maybe the 500 or 800.

Do you have some comparable figures about energy consumption, weight, aero drag, axleload etc.?

Of course every country believes that its train is the best but I´t be interested in some hard facts since all three trains have excellent references.

regards
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
459 Posts
Velaro

and someone should convert this to a poll ;-)
@gramecy, I believe Papagei wants this thread to be objective comparing specs.
Here are the Shinkansen 800 series and N700 series specs.

Shinkansen 800 series
Configuration 6cart configuration(all powered)
acceleration rate from 0 2.5km/h/s
service maximum speed 260km/h
design maximum speed 285km/h
maximum passanger 392
length 27,350(25,000)mm width 3,380mm height 3,650mm
gaude 1,435mm
Power supply AC25,000V 60Hz
Power out put 275kW×4motors×6carts=6,600kW
Control system VVVFInverter controlled(IGBTchips)
motor type WN parallel Caldan type
Brake type regenerative brakes and air brakes
Onboard train signaling system KS-ATC
Manufacturer Hitachi

Sinkansen N700 series
Configuration 16 carts(14M2T、Z・Nconfiguration)
8 carts(all powered carts、Sconfiguration)
acceleration rate from 0 2.6 km/h/s
Service maximum speed 270 km/h(tokaido line)
300 km/h(Sanyo line)
260 km/h(Kyushu line)
maximum passanger 1,123(regular class)+200(1 class)=1,323
Size (length・width・hieght) 25,000*1 ×3,360 ×3,600*2mm
*1front cart is 27,350mm
*2front cart is 3,500mm
weight 700t
gaude 1,435 mm
Power supply AC25,000V 60Hz
Powe output 305kW×56 = 17,080kW (14M2T)
Control system IGBT-VVVF inverter
Motor type TDparallelCaldan type
Brake type regenerative brakes and air brakes
(with weight sensor system)
Onboard train signaling system ATC-1、ATC-NS
Manufacturers Hitachi, Nihon Sharyo, Kawasaki Heavy industry, Kinki Shyaro
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
218 Posts
That is interesting but not really helpful in determining what is 'best'. Best in what context is the question. The general data , accelration and speed values are interesting nonetheless.

I think general description of the technologies used would be most interesting.

The electricity consuption per km would be extremely interesting. Air drag increases to the square with high velocity . Additionally maintenance on the tracks increases with speed. So these are factors one could judge differently even with these 3 train types. The Operating costs would be interesting.

Considering the Velaro. I don't know if the newest velaro suffers from the traditional ice problems. I mean the axle issues caused by using high tensile strength material resulting in brittle fractures. Which trains require regular ultrasound checks on the axles and in what intervals???
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,823 Posts
Considering the Velaro. I don't know if the newest velaro suffers from the traditional ice problems. I mean the axle issues caused by using high tensile strength material resulting in brittle fractures. Which trains require regular ultrasound checks on the axles and in what intervals???
They used that ONLY to reduce noise pollution. And they stopped using that after Eschede.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
478 Posts
Best is completely dependent on environment and needs. It depends on what's important to you and what your needs are.

Is cost the number #1 priority, noise? efficiency?

All three of these trains have their pros and cons.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
218 Posts
They used that ONLY to reduce noise pollution. And they stopped using that after Eschede.
You mean something different here. I am aware of this issue too. What caused Eschede was a broken wheel. I am no expert of this of course but I will explain how I remember and understood this. The wheels had something like damping insulation inside them. They did not use a solid traditional steel wheel. The goal was to reduce vibration.

The axle breakage is a recent issue.

Ice was maybe too daring as it had problems.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,111 Posts
And what about the Russians Velaros? Will they face the same risk of axle/wheel braking?
The axle problem is a problem of the ICE 3 and ICE T and has nothing to do with the Velaros.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,111 Posts
I thought it was only the ICE-T/ICE-TD that had axel problems. The ICE 3 was free from the trouble I thought. Could you show me a report about the ICE 3 please as I'd be interested to read it if I am wrong. :)
Voilà:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,565278,00.html

http://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/bahn740.html

http://www.stern.de/reise/deutschland/:Deutsche-Bahn-Neuer-Riss-ICE-Achse/642467.html

http://www.focus.de/finanzen/news/b...n-in-grossem-stil-austauschen_aid_373670.html
 

·
ぴったん,ラー&
Joined
·
182 Posts
Sinkansen N700 series
Configuration 16 carts(14M2T、Z・Nconfiguration)
8 carts(all powered carts、Sconfiguration)
acceleration rate from 0 2.6 km/h/s
Service maximum speed 270 km/h(tokaido line)
300 km/h(Sanyo line)
260 km/h(Kyushu line)
maximum passanger 1,123(regular class)+200(1 class)=1,323
Size (length・width・hieght) 25,000*1 ×3,360 ×3,600*2mm
*1front cart is 27,350mm
*2front cart is 3,500mm
weight 700t
gaude 1,435 mm
Power supply AC25,000V 60Hz
Powe output 305kW×56 = 17,080kW (14M2T)
Control system IGBT-VVVF inverter
Motor type TDparallelCaldan type
Brake type regenerative brakes and air brakes
(with weight sensor system)
Onboard train signaling system ATC-1、ATC-NS
Manufacturers Hitachi, Nihon Sharyo, Kawasaki Heavy industry, Kinki Shyaro
How long does it take for the trains to reach top speed (270 or 300km/h) and brake to stop? And has the specs for E5 been released yet?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
459 Posts
How long does it take for the trains to reach top speed (270 or 300km/h) and brake to stop? And has the specs for E5 been released yet?
I have not yet found the specs for E5.
If I remember correctly, standstill to top speed of 270 by N700 is 5 minutes. I do not know the service deceleration rate(time) is but I suspect this is dictated more by passenger comfort than technology.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,613 Posts
I have not yet found the specs for E5.
If I remember correctly, standstill to top speed of 270 by N700 is 5 minutes. I do not know the service deceleration rate(time) is but I suspect this is dictated more by passenger comfort than technology.
At least it's faster than the VW bus that goes zero to 60 in 11 minutes. :lol::lol:

I believe it can accelerate faster than that, but they do it for passenger comfort too. I don't think they want to go full throttle and the passengers would fall down.
 

·
High Speed Rail Fan
Joined
·
101 Posts
Alstom AGV

For comparison, and my vote would go to:

Alstom AGV
Articulated train, with distributed drive (powered bogies).
7, 11, or 14 cars - standard options.
250 - 650 passengers.
Commercial design speed: 360km/h (220mph).
Power supply: 25kV 50Hz AC / 15kV 16.7Hz AC / 3kV DC / 1.5kV DC.
Signalling system: ERTMS-standard.
Collision capability: 4.5 megajoules without any deformation of driver's cab.
Train length: 130m - 250m.
Train width: 3m (2.7m inside car).
Mass: 270 - 510 tonnes.
Power: 6,000 - 12,000 kW *
Power-to-weight ratio: 22.6kW/t *
CO2 emissions: 2.2g/km/passenger (about 70 x less than an aircraft).
Combined rheostat & regenerative brakes - can feed up to 8MW back into supply.

Source

* See note in next couple of posts. Edited to avoid confusion.
 
1 - 20 of 37 Posts
Top