Search Forum
Blog Entry# 1954791
Posted: Aug 07 2016 (20:04)
24 Responses
Last Response: Aug 12 2016 (00:26)
24 Responses
Last Response: Aug 12 2016 (00:26)
In the second trial, the hi-speed train from Spain, Talgo, covered New DelhiMumbai Central distance in 12 hours and 55 minutes.
The...
The...
read more... Talgo trial 2: Delhi to Mum in 13 hours
20 Posts
While it's true that TALGO coaches are shorter in length, it's also true that they have only 4 wheels (in place of the usual 8). That's where the concept of the unconventional "Jacob's bogies" fits in. Now, if the length of coach is increased, the weight will also increase proportionally. Then 4 wheels may not be sufficient to hold the coach or else, the weight on wheels may go out of limits which the P-way or the suspension can handle (not using the term "axle load" here).
Making the coach shorter reduced the length of the rigid wheelbase, thereby allowing the coach to negotiate curves at higher speeds. Also, TALGO coaches do not have axles. Wheels are independently installed...
more...
Making the coach shorter reduced the length of the rigid wheelbase, thereby allowing the coach to negotiate curves at higher speeds. Also, TALGO coaches do not have axles. Wheels are independently installed...
more...
80 kmph or 80 mph? 80 kmph is too less to experience the effects of air resistance if I'm not mistaken.
It's 80 kmph. :)
I should have been a bit more clear about what I meant though. Beyond 80 kmph, the effect of the coach's cross sectional area becomes a significant portion of the total resistance to be overcome. It does not make a big difference to the ride quality or hamper the train in achieving a higher speed, but the locomotive has to put in more energy to overcome the resistance. But yes, it is limit only as far as energy efficiency is concerned, not ride quality or feasibility of high speed runs.
...
more...
I should have been a bit more clear about what I meant though. Beyond 80 kmph, the effect of the coach's cross sectional area becomes a significant portion of the total resistance to be overcome. It does not make a big difference to the ride quality or hamper the train in achieving a higher speed, but the locomotive has to put in more energy to overcome the resistance. But yes, it is limit only as far as energy efficiency is concerned, not ride quality or feasibility of high speed runs.
...
more...
the speeds at which the impact of winds hitting sideways becomes critical at much higher speeds than 100 or so. At those speeds when trains cross each other there is also the issue of Bernoulli effect (though not sure how serious it is)
air friction is less at 80 but the issue is the opposition offered by air is proportional to square of speed, and hence rises rather rapidly, especially at higher ends. this is also the reason why most electric land based vehicles (save for Tesla) usually have an upper speed limit close to 80; the battery drainage at speeds higher than that owing to overcoming air friction makes it kind of uneconomical to offer speeds greater than that. even non-electric vehicles will usually have speed governors at those speed, although thats more to do with IC engine, but pretty sure this also plays a role.