News   Nov 22, 2024
National Housing Day: City of Toronto and Riverdale Co-op Open Affordable Homes
 650     1 
News   Nov 22, 2024
Bauhaus Condos Rising in Toronto's Old Town
 1.1K     5 
News   Nov 22, 2024
49-Storey Waterfront Tower Proposed at Spadina and Queens Quay
 3.1K     8 

VIA Rail

smallspy said:
There is no requirement for the aerodynamic covering of underbody appliances by the FRA, who would be in charge of mandating that for Brightline.

No, they just wanted a sleek, aerodynamic look and are willing to pay more for it. Just like the nose cones on their locos.

Dan
Click to expand...
I was thinking that it could be a Florida department of transportation requirement rather than an FRA one.
 
roger1818 said:
I find it interesting how some people on here are more concerned about form than function and others are more concerned about function than form.
Click to expand...
That's always the case some people here seem to think that for transit of any type it has to look a certain way or else it's bad because other cities did it differently.
 
EastYorkTTCFan said:
That's always the case some people here seem to think that for transit of any type it has to look a certain way or else it's bad because other cities did it differently.
Click to expand...
Well... in this case since they are spending a billion dollars on these trainsets, at least make them look like it. While it's not a big issue for me I would think it would be good to have their new trainsets look as different and more modern as possible compared to the ancient hep cars. Hopefully when they build the hfr network they will order trains that look like it belongs in the mid 21st century
 
cplchanb said:
Well... in this case since they are spending a billion dollars on these trainsets, at least make them look like it. While it's not a big issue for me I would think it would be good to have their new trainsets look as different and more modern as possible compared to the ancient hep cars. Hopefully when they build the hfr network they will order trains that look like it belongs in the mid 21st century
Click to expand...
And if they get ripped off in the winter months because of snow banks along the tracks then they waisted money for something that only makes the train look nice. I don't think Via cares if people can see the underside of the train.
 
EastYorkTTCFan said:
And if they get ripped off in the winter months because of snow banks along the tracks then they waisted money for something that only makes the train look nice. I don't think Via cares if people can see the underside of the train.
Click to expand...

Especially if VIA can move to more high level platforms.

And if they do get the tracks up to 110 mph, the undercarriages will just be a blur as they pass.

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
Especially if VIA can move to more high level platforms.

And if they do get the tracks up to 110 mph, the undercarriages will just be a blur as they pass.

- Paul
Click to expand...
How do they do it in Europe with their high speed trains in the middle of winter? When speeds are 3x that?
 
crs1026 said:
Especially if VIA can move to more high level platforms.

And if they do get the tracks up to 110 mph, the undercarriages will just be a blur as they pass.

- Paul
Click to expand...
It's not just aesthetics. There's an aerodynamic advantage as well that can probably save fuel over the long run. Just like the aero fairings under semis these days
 
cplchanb said:
How do they do it in Europe with their high speed trains in the middle of winter? When speeds are 3x that?
Click to expand...
I think it would depend on what part of Europe they run in as not everywhere gets snow or as much as we do in North America. A better example would be to look at the Acela express train in Amtrak's north eastern corridor.
 
Some people here seem to forget that maintenance is part of the contract (and Siemens has to guarantee a certain minimum availability), which gives them every incentive to include measures which make their trains more resistant against external impacts. As for purely aesthetically measures (as these underbody things seem to be), it is difficult to justify them towards the bean-counters at TC. Therefore, I would like to kindly suggest that we just assume that there is a valid reason that they are not included on VIA's fleet and move on to a less trivial discussion...
 
cplchanb said:
It's not just aesthetics. There's an aerodynamic advantage as well that can probably save fuel over the long run. Just like the aero fairings under semis these days
Click to expand...
Maybe, maybe not. Any aerodynamic impact would have to be borne out by testing (maybe there have been such tests-I don't know). Just because it looks sleek doesn't mean it is. Kinda like a spoiler on a Honda Civic.
 
lenaitch said:
Maybe, maybe not. Any aerodynamic impact would have to be borne out by testing (maybe there have been such tests-I don't know). Just because it looks sleek doesn't mean it is. Kinda like a spoiler on a Honda Civic.
Click to expand...

One study I found in a quick Google scan suggested that underbody drag accounts for perhaps 15% of the total aerodynamic resistance of a high speed train. This compares with up to 30% for a highway trailer - which is why one does see skirts on highway vehicles.

Of the 15%, about half was attributed to the trucks, which is unavoidable especially given that the trucks and suspension have to be designed for function and are impossible to streamline. Merely skirting the underfloor equipment (which again has to be built for function) is not a satisfactory solution to the problem because the flat front-facing and rear-facing surfaces of HVAC units, retention tanks, and brake gear are not addressed.

So while the Brightline may look nicer, I doubt there are big energy gains, particularly at the less than high speed velocities that VIA runs at on shared trackage.

Interestingly, a much higher amount of drag can be reduced by using full-width diaphragms that cover the gaps between coaches. And the front and rear end shaping is paramount, at least according to this author.

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
One study I found in a quick Google scan suggested that underbody drag accounts for perhaps 15% of the total aerodynamic resistance of a high speed train. This compares with up to 30% for a highway trailer - which is why one does see skirts on highway vehicles.

Of the 15%, about half was attributed to the trucks, which is unavoidable especially given that the trucks and suspension have to be designed for function and are impossible to streamline. Merely skirting the underfloor equipment (which again has to be built for function) is not a satisfactory solution to the problem because the flat front-facing and rear-facing surfaces of HVAC units, retention tanks, and brake gear are not addressed.

So while the Brightline may look nicer, I doubt there are big energy gains, particularly at the less than high speed velocities that VIA runs at on shared trackage.

Interestingly, a much higher amount of drag can be reduced by using full-width diaphragms that cover the gaps between coaches. And the front and rear end shaping is paramount, at least according to this author.

- Paul
Click to expand...
interesting. can you share the link for our perusal?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top