Talk:Transrapid
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| See also: WikiProject Trains to do list | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments) |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance within the Trains WikiProject. |
 |
This article is maintained by the Passenger trains task force. |
To whoever added the sentence about track costs: Standard high-speed tracks are quite expensive as well and also rather cut the landscape due to the necesity of straightness. So it has been argued that Transrapid tracks are not so much more expensive, especially if one takes into account that the train itself might even be cheaper. Does anybody now details, like numbers? Sanders muc 09:56, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
- Yes: Traansrapid published some data on this. Unfortunately they prevent hotlinking to their pages, so go to www.transrapid.de > English > System > System > Economic Efficiency to see this image: :http://www.transrapid.de/basics_en/archiv/35/guideway_infrastruct.gif
- fel64 12:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Transrapid tracks are indeed better for the landscape than standard railways, because they are placed on stilts and thus don't cut the country into two parts, which I think is critical for environment. Further, I heard that an amount of chemicals is used to keep standard railways free of plants, but I'm not quite sure whether this is true. I'll look this up somewhere. (PS: I'm in no way involved with Transrapid, this is just what I've heard.) --Robamler 23:19, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Expansion required (technical details)
While this article describes the political development of the Transrapid very well, it lacks explanation of technical details. At least, a link to Magnetic levitation train should be provided, but I think there should also be some special technical aspects of the Transrapid included in this page. I'll check whether I can do this, but if it's getting too complex, I would like to look for some place to anounce it. Where is the best place for this? Wikipedia:Todo_list or Wikipedia:Requests_for_expansion? --Robamler 23:42, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
As a big fan and 'casual expert' in the Transrapid project, I'll try and add some more technical information to the Wikipage if I get the time. :-)
Hyperspeed 10th May 2006CR at 03:20 BST.
I just had a quick skim read of the corresponding Transrapid page on the German language Wikipedia, and there is a much greater amount of technical, historical, and operational information on there which I think would be very beneficial to the English language version. I speak a little bit of German myself and could attempt a translation of the German page into this one, although I think it would be done better as a Wikipedia community project.
Would anyone object to me copying the German article into a temporary Wikipedia page and adding a note at the top labelling it as an in progress translation with links to both the German and English versions, or is there a system already in place for translation of Wikipedia articles into different languages? Either way, I think it could prove to be very beneficial for the English Language version! :-)
Additional: Just found the relevant Translation request page and added an appropriate entry on there. This should hopefully speed up and standardise the translation process. :-)
Hyperspeed 12th May 2006CR at 17:10 BST.
As has been requested by Hyperspeed, I'll be aiding in the translation over the coming weeks, as well as adding some technical information not yet mentioned. --Qasdfdsaq 01:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] One train at a time on the track?
Why can only one train exist on the track at the same time?
Acording to the german article the track is divided into segments of 0.3 to 5 km length which need their own power source. Acceleration or deceleration happens through changing the frequency of the magnetic field inside the segment. Only one train can be in a segment but on the track there can be more.. sorry bout my bad english :)
I'd like to expand/clarify this a little:
Because the motive force of the train is actually provided by the magnets in the guideway (Rail) and not by the magnets (Or any other system) on the train itself, this basically means that each section of track can only "move" in one direction at a time.
Therefore if two maglev trains (One heading North and the other south, for example.) were to approach each other on a collision course and the Northbound train was to enter a specific section of track just before the southbound one, then the section of track in question would be set to "flow" North and would result in the southbound train slowing down, stopping momentarily, then accellerating backwards towards the North.
The end result of this would simply be two trains travelling in the same direction with a possibly shorter seperation distance than usual! :-)
Hyperspeed 10th May 2006CR at 03:20 BST.
- Nice principle but a couple of questions
- How violent would the reversal be. In particular could it derail the train allowing another train to crash into it.
- Couldn't they crash near the end of the segment before the second train hitting the segment has had time to slow down/reverse Plugwash 10:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
1. Because of the way the system works, the train cannot be derailed in the conventional sense as the train itself wraps around the guideway. I would imagine that the worst effect of this would be rather violent (But hopefully not dangerous.) decelleration and reversal. If you are referring to the train coming into contact with the guideway itself, this could well be a possibility. But the guideway and trains are probabally designed to allow for such a thing to occur with design-anticipated damage only occurring to the guideway and the train, not the passengers on board.
2. Quite possibly...It depends on both the length of the segment in question, and the closing speed of both trains. If both trains enter a 5km section of track with a closing speed of about 400km/h (200km/h each) then the second train would probabally reverse with time to spare. On the other hand, I would guess that two trains entering the same section at a closing speed of 1100Km/h would probabally come off much worse!
It should be pointed out though that in normal operation, the fail-safe train control systems in use would not allow such a thing to occur. Also to my knowlege, this kind of eventuality has not been tested with real vehicles - At least not at the speeds discussed here. Finally, my answers here apply to the Transrapid system only.
Hyperspeed 10th May 2006CR at 17:55 BST.
It depends more on the track's operating profile of the section in question than the actual speeds. The Transrapid system is not over-designed and only applies the exact amount of power required to keep a train running at the design speed - no more, and no less. Thus, I regret to say that in your above example of two trains approaching at a 400km/h closing speed on a 5km section of track would inevitably result in a fatal high-speed crash. The drive system simply does not apply the required amount of power to reverse the oncoming train fast enough.
But you are right in that the control and failsafe systems ensure that such an event is explicitly prevented on multiple levels.
As for de-railing or the train coming into contact with the track, that's again very very unlikely, as the propulsion system does not provide enough power to destabalize the train.
Personally I find that the inability of two trains to run in opposite directions on one section of track to be an over-hyped and useless "safety feature", one that we will hopefully never see the inadequacy of in practice. However, it will admittedly slow down the oncoming vehicle and possibly reduce the force of the impact. However, I stress that at the rated 200km/h switching speed, an impact will be inevitable.
--Qasdfdsaq 01:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Translation of German version into English
I've created Transrapid/German where the translation of this article from German to English can take place. At current, there appears to be a problem with referencing the images from the German version, so I may have to transfer these over manually. If you can help with the translation, then please do! :-)
Follow-up note: Cheers for moving the temp page RHaworth, much appreciated! :-)
Hyperspeed 12th May 2006CR at 18:30 BST.
For those who are interested, the translation is coming on quite well so far now. I've managed to translate about 25-33% of the original German so far and I'm hoping to have the whole page done within the space of a month, assuming I'll be doing it all on my own. Would anyone mind me adding a note at the top of the original Transrapid page linking to the temp one, so that anyone who can't find the information they might be looking for on this page can go over to the translation and possibly have more luck there? :-)
Hyperspeed 15th May 2006CR at 01:10 BST.
[edit] Contradicting information regarding construction costs
One paragraph says it's cheaper than HSR, one says it's more expensive. A blanketing more/less statement is dubious anyway due to the multiple factors involved - Transrapid could theoretically be cheaper in some places, HSR may well be cheaper in others. Some clarification and cleaning up is required. --Qasdfdsaq 17:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] incomplete and old information
Economic and environmental consideration
The TR has been more energy efficient that the ICE until the ICE 3 entered service. Up to a speed of 330 kph the ICE 3 consumes less energy that the latest version of the TR. The TR has no mechanic friction between train and track, but the magnetic field between the magnets in the track and in the TR slows the TR down, more than classic mechanic friction slows an ICE 3. Furthermore the TR needs quite a lot of energy just to levitate 10mm above the track.
Construction costs
Building a maglev track is not less costly than a comparatively High-speed railway (HSR) line. According to numbers form TR proponents in Germany a conventional HSR is significantly cheaper in flat terrain and still a bit cheaper in a low mountain ranges(3.5<->5 billion and 4.9<->5.4 for a 200 kilometer long line). It is true that the TR is capable of climbing significantly steeper tracks than conventional trains, but there is a catch. You can not go from zero to a 10% inclination without building a very long ramp. Such a ramp for a speed of 400 kph would be four kilometres long. That does not come cheap and at least in Germany you don´t actually need the ability to climb a 10% inclination. Furthermore you should keep the passengers in mind. Even the 4% inclination feels like a roller coaster sometimes, 10 % would hardly be comfortable and also causes problems with the luggage and dishes in the restaurant.
Transportation system for Germany
The railroad line from Hamburg to Berlin was in a poor state –no surprise after 40 years of communism- but it had to be improved for a speed of 100 mph anyway. As far as the general suitability for Germany is concerned it is correct that you can hardly go 100 kilometres before reaching a major city. Often the distance is less and the closer the stops are the less sense makes increasing the top speed. For example at a speed of 300 kph an ICE 3 need 26 minutes for a distance of 100 kilometres, at 400 kph the TR need 22 minutes. A 1/3 increase in speed just leads to a 15 % decrease of travel time. Markus Becker02 16:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Disagree with above statements
Markus, I do not agree with your edits to the article. You have provided no sources, nor any actual figures. The construction cost of Transrapid on-site is much lower than that of HSR, though the components cost more. You've not stated which of these are included in your points.
Additionally, your comments in this discussion lend serious doubts about the credibility of your other information.
You imply that the Transrapid is less energy efficient at lower speeds and more at higher speeds. Logic and arithmetic would have it the other way round. Please state your sources.
You mention that a 10% grade would require a long ramp. You then mention the "roller coaster" quality of such a ride. This is absolutely untrue. With a long ramp, you do not feel the grade at all, whether 10%, 4% or otherwise. Without looking out the window, passengers would not be able to tell they're on a grade at all. Simple physics prove this. There would be absolutely no problems with luggage or dishes in the restaurant.
Finally, you mention that TR takes 22 minutes to traverse 100km at 400kph, while ICE3 takes 26 minutes. Again, this is absolutely incorrect. The TR, when limited to 400kph, can easily cover 100km in less than 17 minutes. With full speed enabled (even Shanghai over 30km operates above 400kmh) it takes 14.5 minutes. That's a 35% decrease in travel time with 33% increase in top speed, not 15% as you say. At 500km/h it becomes 45%.
Transrapid has superior acceleration when compared to HSR; nearly double when compared to some (e.g. TGV). This means it makes more sense to use Transrapid over shorter distances than HSR, even with top speed kept the same. Qasdfdsaq 19:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
The source is "Transrapid oder Eisenbahn" by Rudolf Breimeier. He analyzes a multitude of available data, a lot if not most from the Transrapid makers themselves.
a)Energy: The TR needs energy to levitate and to move. The amount of energy needed for levitation and guidance is the same no matter at what speed the TR moves. A train does not need any energy for that. So at lower the speeds the train has an advantage.
b) inclination: I don´t think you have ever travelled on new the Cologne-Frankfurt line? It has a max. inclination of 4%. Once you know this line, you would think differently about a 10% inclination.
c) travel time: Includes time for accelaraton and deceleration, a 5% reserve and is counted from the departure at station A to the departure at station B.
d) acceleration: The main factor limiting acceleration is again passenger comfort. Trains could accelerate much faster, but that might be a good idea for a Metro train, but not for a long distance train(luggage or dishes) Markus Becker02 21:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
a) Agreed. However some sources state that this power is very low (below the amount of energy needed for the ICE or Transrapid's air conditioning system). Is your source available to look at online?
b) In fact, I have travelled the line many times. I stand by my statements about the 10% grade. So do the laws of physics.
c) Adding 5% reserve time to Transrapid's sub-17 minute journey time yields less than 17 minutes 50 seconds. Still nowhere near your 22 minute quote, and still 33% faster than the ICE3's time (does that include reserve time too?).
d) Transrapid's acceleration is virtually un-noticeable. It was designed this way to ensure passenger comfort; it could accelerate a lot faster if they decided to make it that way. The Japanese JR-Maglev accelerates 3x faster than Transrapid again, but most passengers don't find it uncomfortable. Many HSTs cannot accelerate faster, even if the designers wanted them to; it is a limitation of the train's engine power, which often cannot be economically increased. Most HST's already operate at maximum acceleration, which incidentally is far lower than Transrapid's standard acceleration.Qasdfdsaq 23:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
