Double-deck EMU with a specific bogie arrangement

Schienenfahrzeugetagung Graz
11.9.2017, Jan Plomer

About me
1990 born
2009 – 2014 CTU in Prague, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering
2013 – … Project Double-deck articulated train (D-DART)
2014 Diploma work feasibility study (D-DART)
2014 – … Designer, Škoda Transportation a.s.
2015 – … Independent technical consultant
Interests:
Rolling stock design – bogies
Suburban transport solutions – railway
Motto: Be a part of creating the state-of-the-art.

6 x 26,4 = 158 m
Motivation – Prague suburban railway
0
10
20
30
40
2006 2011 2016 2021 2026
Numberofpassengerperdayx103
year
S1
S2
S4
S7
S9
•Prague suburban lines have a limited capacity
• 3 tracks on S1 only, other 2-track lines
• TEN-T lines with IC and freight operation
• 3 kV DC system with limited power
• Minimum achievable headway is 15(10) minutes
• Number of passengers grows significantly
• Todays EMUs can‘t offer the required capacity
• Platform length is limited to 200 m
• Train length can't exceed platform length
• What are the requirements for new EMUs?
8 x 26,4 = 211 m
Line S1
22 717
Line S7
20 630
Main station
Line S4
16 373
120 827 passenger daily
101 761 on 5 main lines
Line S9
25 832
Brno
Vienna
Bratislava
Budapest
Ostrava
Warsaw
Hradec Králové
Line S2
16 209
České Budějovice
Linz
Plzeň
München/Nürnberg
Ústí nad Labem
Dresden/Berlin
200 m
2 x 310 seats
Source: ROPID

Mass transit EMU requirements
4
1) Customer need
2) Better economy
e.g S-Bahn Zürich (300 m platforms)
Prague suburban (200 m platforms)
…
Significant parameter in
life-cycle costs (LCC)

Why is the weight so important?
5
slightly dependent on train
weight (traction and braking
equipment, about 4%)
strongly dependent on train
weight, according to local
infrastructure manager
(about 50%)
slightly dependent on train
weight (traction and braking
requirements, about 2%)
strongly dependent on train
weight (about 35%)
Train path costs
25%
Invest
25%
Energy
25%
Maintenance
25%
LCC distribution

Single-deck EMUs – “specific capacity” ( )
6
The conventional (older) approach
• There is no more space to increase capacity at the same length.
• Reduction of number of bogies can be achieved only with higher axle-load
• 19 m bogie pitch is maximum because of loading gauge (width ≥ 2.8m) and axle-load
C) Jakobs bogie concept – 19 m length of intermediate section
Length 103 m, specific capacity 89% (74% with 8 doors), width 2.82 m, 6 bogies
The most recent approach
A) Separate cars – 26,4 m length of intermediate section
length 106m, specific capacity 90% (75% with 8 doors), width 2.82 m, 8 bogies
B) Jakobs bogie concept – 16,4 m length of intermediate section
Length 106m, specific capacity 89% (74% with 8 doors), width 2.88 m, 7 bogies
total outside length
103 m
106 m
106 m

7
The conventional (older) approach
• New solutions (E, F) did not bring any extra useful space - specific capacity
• Each bogie devaluates the double-deck effect
D) Separate DD cars – 26,4 m length of intermediate section
length 106m, specific capacity 118% (103% with 8 doors), width 2.82 m, 8 bogies
F) Separate SD and DD cars – 26,4 m length of intermediate section
Length 106 m, specific capacity 109% (94% with 8 doors), width 2.82 m, 8 bogies
The most recent approach
E) Jakobs bogie concept – various lengths of intermediate section
Length 95m, specific capacity 111% (94% with 8 doors), width ca. 3 m, 8 bogies
Double-deck EMUs – “specific capacity” ( )total outside length
106 m
106 m
95 m

How to achieve greater “specific capacity” ?
Greater proportion of double-deck sections
To reduce number of bogies through common bogies
8
Common bogies
with greater
load capacity
Longer sections
than standard
bogie pitch
Has anybody tried to solve this problem before?

9
Common bogies with greater load capacity Longer sections than standard bogie pitch
Design from 1950‘s (partly 1930‘s)
More than 180 units built
Why don‘t we use it anymore?
•High track forces caused by outdated
bogie design with nearly rigid axle guidance
Why don‘t we use it anymore?
• Low reliability resulting from high
number of innovative elements used
throughout the whole train
The main principle was not the reason to abandon these concepts!
Design from 1960‘s
3 APT-P units 8 years in test service

10
3-axle bogie of DBz/DBv
DR from Görlitz (1950‘s)
2- axle common bogie of
the APT-P train (1960‘s)
The FEBA “bogie“ of NSB
Class 72 EMU (1990‘s)
The new 3-axle common bogie

The three-axle common bogie design
11
Outpulled pivot
(socket)
Fully suspended
traction motor
Dampers
Radial steering system
(passive)
Axle-guide bearing
Primary suspension spring
Coupling push-pull rod
Deformation element
Bogie
frame
Air suspension systems
Anti-roll bars

The use of the three-axle common bogie
12

540 kg
547 kg
491 kg
469 kg
572 kg
446 kg
385 kg
3,3/m
3,0/m
3,3/m
4,2/m
4,0/m
4,2/m
5,1/m
2 3 4 5 6
200 300 400 500 600
Seats per meter
Mass per seat in kg
13
A) Separate cars – 26,4 m length of intermediate section
C) Jakobs bogie concept – 19 m length of intermediate section
B) Jakobs bogie concept – 16,4 m length of intermediate
section
D) Separate DD cars – 26,4 m length of intermediate section
F) Separate SD and DD cars – 26,4 m length of intermediate section
E) Jakobs bogie concept – various length of intermediate section
G) D-DART concept
100mlength
For comparability are all trainsets calculated
without multi-purpose areas or toilets and
have 8 double-leaf doors

Basic layout of 4-car trainset
14
2 x

Parameters
15
Parameter Value Unit
Max. operational speed 160 160 160 200 200km/h
Number of sections 2 3 4 5 6
Length over couplings 50 74 98 122 146m
Height above rail level 4 630 mm
Width 2 800 mm
Mass 100 149 191 233 275t
Number of seats (2nd class only, tip-up incl.) 202 329 471 607 746pcs
Number of wheelchair places 2 pcs
Number of toilets (standard + universal) 1+1 2+1 3+1 4+1 5+1pcs
Loading gauge DE2 acc. to EN 15273
Floor height at entrance doors ARL 550 - 760 mm
Wheel diameter (new/worn) 920/860 mm
Max. axle load 210 kN
Number of driven/all wheelsets 2/7 4/10 6/13 8/16 8/19pcs
Continous output at wheel 1 300 2 600 3900 5 200 5 200kW
Starting tractive effort 100 200 300 320 320kN

Feasibility study
• Mass and payload decomposition
• Dynamic model compilation
• Simulations (EN 14 363):
– Quasistatic safety against derailment
– Running safety
– Running behavior
– Suspension (sway) coefficient
• Gauge calculation
• Applicable on many configurations
16

How can the D-DART help Prague?
17
6 x 26,4 = 158 m
2 x 98 = 196 m
200 m
0
10
20
30
40
2006 2011 2016 2021 2026
Numberofpassengerperdayx103
year
S1
S2
S4
S7
S9
Line S1
22 717
Line S7
20 630
Main station
Line S4
16 373
120 827 passenger daily
101 761 on 5 main lines
Line S9
25 832
Brno
Vienna
Bratislava
Budapest
Ostrava
Warsaw
Hradec Králové
Line S2
16 209
České Budějovice
Linz
Plzeň
München/Nürnberg
Ústí nad Labem
Dresden/Berlin
Source: ROPID
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
950
1000
1050
1100
1150
Cumulativedistributionofcapacitydemand
Occurenceofcapacitydemand
Number of passengers
Capacity demand in rush hours 6:00 - 9:00 when the maximal route capacity is fully exploited
2016
2021
2026
2036
2 x D-DART - 942 seats2 x 471 - 620 seats
471, year 2036: 50% trains
with sufficient capacity
2016: Capacity demand on
70% of trains is 450 seats
D-DART, year 2036: 85% trains
with sufficient capacity

Double-deck trains in London suburban?
• Many studies were done, but all with standard double-deck coach
with 4-axle arrangement (limited distance between pivots)
• In 2015 the Tata Steel Halcrow JV tried to evaluate the CP6 study
with double-deck train with a specific axle arrangement
18
Single deck EMU
Concept with single-axle running gears
D-DART UK
Classic DD EMU
Jacobs bogie DD EMU

The D-DART UK
19
Parameter Required value Designed value Unit
Max. operational speed 200 200km/h
Number of sections 5 (optionally 6) 5 (optionally 6)
Max. length of 5-car/ 6-car rake 125 / 146 122,3 / 145,6 m
Number of seats (2nd class only, tip-up incl.) > 600 / > 700 660 / 806 pcs
Number of wheelchair places 4 4pcs
Number of toilets (standard+universal) 2+2 2+2 pcs
Max. height above rail level ≤ 4 500 4 500 mm
Max. width acc. to loading gauge 2 800 mm
Floor height at entrance doors ARL 1 050 - 1 100 1 100 mm
Wheel diameter (new/worn) 920/860 920/860 mm
Max. axle load 224 213kN
Min. operational braking mean deceleration 9%g (0,88) 1,09 m/s2
Min. emergency braking mean deceleration 12%g (1,15) 1,17m/s2
Min. mean acceleration 0 - 200 km/h* 6%g(0,59) 0,77 m/s2
*) all seats occupied, max.power, adhesion µ=0,25

Benefits of the D-DART concept
20
 Lower weight:
 lower energy consumption
 lower train-path costs
 Higher capacity
 Less wear
Standard capacity tiers
 Modularity
EMUs
PUSH-PULLs

Further questions:
jplomer@seznam.cz

Double-deck EMU with a specific bogie arrangement

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Ähnlich wie Double-deck EMU with a specific bogie arrangement

Ähnlich wie Double-deck EMU with a specific bogie arrangement (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Double-deck EMU with a specific bogie arrangement

Hinweis der Redaktion