Re: Transrapid abandons Sydney-Canberra

[DELETE.THIS.hjz@Zierke.com (Hans-Joachim Zierke)]

Maarten Deen schrieb:


> May be true, but why does transrapid accelerate so fast? To accelerate
> fast you should have a) lots of power, or b) low friction/drag. If you
> compare TR's data with the recordruns of TGV 325, than TR accelerates from
> 0 to 430 in 4 minutes, and TGV 325 needed 8 minutes from 0 to 440. Where
> is the gap?


While the TGV is quite clever a design, it is rather bad in acceleration, 
especially at low speed. Reason is, that it is loco-hauled. There aren't 
enough powered wheels to accelerate it, it is stopped by wheelslip. You'll
get better results with Shinkansen or ICE3 - more drive axles.

Also, the TR is lighter. In comparison to the 2nd class of a normal train, 
even its 1st is cattle class. Providing sardine comfort level like some
Korean 747s has big advantages: Only 2/3 total weight, and less air drag 
due to a shorter train.

Also, the standard TGV isn't a superlight train. With comfortable seating, 
trains like the TGV might be able to reach 0.6 t / seat. Some Shinkansen 
reach 0.5 with the sardine trick, double-deck TGV reaches 0.7 t, but a 
standard TGV won't.


Sure it is _technically possible_ to build it lighter. Question is, wether 
the advantage in travel time is worth the cost of doing that.

The main problem is: If you buy a car, you may buy the technically most 
advanced solution, because you are wasting your own money when buying a 
Porsche or something like that. In public transport, the question is always
for the most bang for the buck.

I do not think that it makes sense to go faster than 300 - 350 through 
deserted areas, and 220 - 230 through densely populated areas.

hajo


-- 

A dummie's guide to using Usenet: Mail-replies are sent by "reply". A nice
feature of Usenet, that works since the early 80s.