Transportation future rail: Maglev, Aerotrain ...

[sen-no-sen]

Indeed, considering the low speed a good old metro is much more efficient, but hey it's technical demo.
By cons for the JR-mag-lev I wonder how much it will cost them in terms of energy with speeds of the order of 500 km / h, because beyond 300 the aerodynamic resistance becomes really huge.
The planes limit this problem by gaining a maximum of altitude, but still remain fuel sinks.

[Leo Maximus]

... On the other hand for the JR-mag-lev I wonder how much it will cost them in terms of energy with speeds of the order of 500 km / h, because beyond 300 the aerodynamic resistance becomes really huge ...

There, I have already searched but it is difficult to have information, apparently the developments are very secret and the patents do not reveal much.

JR and Hitachi claim that the cost per passenger / km is "derisory" but JR and Hitachi say what they want, like TEPCO what ...

A ride on a monorail line in Japan (Naha to Okinawa). We can see that we are going at the same speed as cars , but it's nice :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pRuY9uS ... r_embedded

[sen-no-sen]

JR and Hitachi claim that the cost per passenger / km is "derisory" but JR and Hitachi say what they want, like TEPCO what ...

I can hardly believe it!
Despite a passenger weight / mass ratio of the train of barely 300kg, the greatest amount of energy is still the one needed to face the "aerodynamic wall" (the JR is shaped like a fighter plane)!
It also seems to me that linear induction motors lose power after a certain speed.
Still, if they decided to finance such a project it was because the game was worth the candle.

[Leo Maximus]

I have some figures allowing to compare ICE, Transrapid and the Japanese Maglev with the speeds in service:

51 Wh / km per passenger at 300 km / h with the ICE

81 Wh / km per passenger at 431 km / h with the Transrapid

74 Wh / km per passenger at 500 km / h with the Japanese Maglev (The future "Linear Express")

The Japanese Maglev is much more efficient than the Transrapid and the ICE. As of April 22, 2010, it had covered 783000 km in tests and transported 150000 passengers.

Source: (Yoshiyuki Kasai of Japan Railways)

What is a little surprising is the consumption given for the ICE, 51 Wh / km, it is much lower than that given for the TGV.

[sen-no-sen]

What is a little surprising is the consumption given for the ICE, 51 Wh / km, it is much lower than that given for the TGV.

It is certainly related to the efficiency of distributed motor skills.

[Forhorse]

Maybe there is the way to calculate ...
Do the calculations take into account only the traction energy, or the auxiliaries? (brake compressor, engine ventilation, etc.) or even passenger comfort (air conditioning, lighting)

[Leo Maximus]

What is a little surprising is the consumption given for the ICE, 51 Wh / km, it is much lower than that given for the TGV.

It is certainly related to the efficiency of distributed motor skills.

Yes, but there are several types of ICE and they do not all have distributed power. I don't know what ICE it is.

Other figures on the comparative ICE / Maglev energy consumption per passenger (source Kazuo Sawada - Japan Railways):

At 200 km / h:

ICE = 32Wh/km
Maglev = 32 Wh/km

At 250 km / h:

ICE = 44Wh/km
Maglev = 37 Wh/km

At 300 km / h:

ICE = 71Wh/km
Maglev = 47 Wh/km

Energy consumption increases much more with speed in the case of the ICE than in the case of the Maglev.

Anyway ... 3 videos on youtube :

The first is on the TGV 28018 Strasbourg-Le Havre. We start from a speed of 30 km / h and we reach 320 km / h in just over 6 minutes, maximum acceleration, "full pot, there!" said the driver:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jy_BWdNF ... re=related

The second is on the Transrapid in service in Shanghai. We do the same thing: 30 km / h -> 320 km / in 2'04 ", almost three times faster than the TGV! We then continue up to 431 km / h, speed reached after 2'58" ! We have a view of the landscape at 430 km / h for a few seconds ! Important note, the line is only 30,5 km long. It is in service:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZI4QEYBWuI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecozAIQ9 ... re=related

The third video (which I have already given) is on the Japanese Maglev where we go from 30 km / to 320 km / h in 40 seconds instead of 2'04 "on the Transrapid and 6 minutes by TGV , nine times faster! You reach 501 km / h in 70 seconds with little noise and vibrations. It's another world:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZ6dYhHI ... re=related

There's no photo, omnibus capable of replacing the plane and the TGV while consuming less energy, the Maglev have a future, I think ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcsxskLSjoE

[sen-no-sen]

There's no photo, omnibus capable of replacing the plane and the TGV while consuming less energy, the Maglev have a future, I think ...

Quite the last video!
Indeed, given the increasing increase in the cost of fossil fuels, and without any real replacement (biofuels are madness), the air transport of the future risks being reserved for a wealthy elite ... as well as the armed forces.
High-speed transport on rail (s) will develop in many countries.

A site on the monorail project in Quebec:
http://trensquebec.qc.ca/monorail-versus-tgv

[bernardd]

51 Wh / km per passenger at 300 km / h with the ICE

81 Wh / km per passenger at 431 km / h with the Transrapid

74 Wh / km per passenger at 500 km / h with the Japanese Maglev (The future "Linear Express")

Could you please recall the unladen, maximum and passenger masses for each of the vehicles in the comparison?

[chatelot16]

the classic tgv was already distributed

the classic train is a locomotive and a large number of wagons: this means that all wagons must be strong enough to transmit traction between the loco and the rest of the train

the classic tgv is a fixed length, number of non-powered wagons much lower than a conventional train ... when we want to extend it we put 2 tgv

TGV cars can therefore be much lighter than train cars

this principle has been used for a very long time to make railcars much lighter than conventional trains

the tgv has a reason to be lighter because it does not have to withstand the traction of a train, but it is still heavy enough to be rigid enough to run at 500km / h ... it could be lighter if he was satisfied with a more reasonable speed

for me the future of the train is not speed, but economy! the possibility of making small vehicles with automated driving to make profitable the small lines which are the essential complement of the large ones