• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Weird looking train

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #11
    I just thought it was an inflatable cushion to restrict buffeting when two or more units are coupled, It's just that it has been left inflated...
    Last edited by Churchill; 24 June 2010, 15:35.

    Comment


      #12
      Originally posted by Mich the Tester View Post
      So why do very fast trains like TGVs, pendolinos, ICE and so on have an aerodynamic front end? Is it to keep the front on the ground? Does the effect of wind resistance increase exponentially with speed? Or is it just to look cool?
      The drag increases with the square of the velocity.

      I would guess the design of the front of high speed trains is mostly about affecting the flow of air under and over the rest of the train.
      While you're waiting, read the free novel we sent you. It's a Spanish story about a guy named 'Manual.'

      Comment


        #13
        Originally posted by doodab View Post
        The drag increases with the square of the velocity.
        And the 160 km/h Mitch quoted is only 100 mph, which is probably about what these similarly aerodynamically challenged trains do:



        The fast ones tend to get pointy.

        As you say the aerodynamic losses must be greater on the train as a whole rather than at the front, because if that were say 5 m^2 or so, it isn't going to create significant drag at those speeds, at least compared to rolling resistance.
        Last edited by TimberWolf; 24 June 2010, 18:12.

        Comment


          #14
          Originally posted by Mich the Tester View Post
          http://www.seat61.com/images/Norway-oresund-train.jpg

          I’m just arranging my trip to the Stockholm Tens
          and while booking the train tickets I came across this picture of the Copenhagen to Stockholm train. What a strange looking contraption. Aside from the aesthetic eccentricities, I wonder how good the aerodynamics are at 160km/h.
          Top speed is 180 kph. The aerodynamics are pretty good.

          HTH
          Insanity: repeating the same actions, but expecting different results.
          threadeds website, and here's my blog.

          Comment


            #15
            Originally posted by threaded View Post
            Unsubstantiated bollocks; as usual.

            HTH
            Hope that helps.

            Comment


              #16
              Originally posted by Mich the Tester View Post
              No, but I'm trying to find ouot more about DaveB's theory that the cushion of air would be so effective.
              Balls... specifically golf balls...

              Comment


                #17
                Looks like a bog standard bog unit to me. Haven't you ever seen a Sprinter before? In fact, what it really reminds me of, is the Metro Camell class 28 Trans Pennine units that used to operate in the North West Region in the 1970s.

                Comment


                  #18
                  Originally posted by centurian View Post
                  Balls... specifically golf balls...
                  Ideal if the train is spinning like a spinning thing. The interesting thing about (spinning) golf balls though is that they travel further in air than in vacuum. Or so semi-credible web sites like this say.

                  Comment


                    #19
                    Originally posted by TimberWolf View Post
                    Ideal if the train is spinning like a spinning thing. The interesting thing about (spinning) golf balls though is that they travel further in air than in vacuum. Or so semi-credible web sites like this say.
                    Isn't the internet crap at times: a page describing the Magnus effect, yet they don't mention the name, they then say there isn't a formula to describe the range, and yet there is.
                    Insanity: repeating the same actions, but expecting different results.
                    threadeds website, and here's my blog.

                    Comment


                      #20
                      Originally posted by threaded View Post
                      Isn't the internet crap at times: a page describing the Magnus effect, yet they don't mention the name, they then say there isn't a formula to describe the range, and yet there is.
                      It's a golf rather physics page - the first semi-credible one I found. Here's a better one.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X