IRFCA Mailing List Archive

Messages 241 - 260

Previous 20 Messages          Archive Index          Next 20 Messages

From: J Mukerji <jis@mtgzx.email

Subject: Re: Rajdhani and WDM4

Date: 11 Sep 1990 16:47:00 -0500


Excerpts from mail: 11-Sep-90 anand@top.email (1001)


> One interesting thing I remember was that the Delhi Howrah Rajdhani was
> always pulled by a WDM 4 rather than an electric. I wonder why.

That's because in those days WDM4 was the only class certified for
130Kmph, which used to be the top speed of the Howrah Rajdhani. The
fastest electric those days was WAM4 (120 Kmph). Since then various
shades of the WAP class electrics with higher speed capabilities have
come out and the Rajdhanis are pulled by one of the various WAP class
electrics these days.
Jishnu Mukerji,
jis@mtgzx.email
+1 201 957 5986,
AT&T Bell Laboratories,
MT 3K-423, 200 Laurel Ave.,
Middletown NJ 07748

From: Vicraj T. Thomas <vic@cs.email

Subject: engine class.

Date: 11 Sep 1990 14:03:00 -0500


Will some kind person please take the time to explain to me what the different
engine designations (eg. WDM4, WDM2, WAM4, WAP1, etc.) mean? Are these
designations universal or are they peculiar to the IR? I remember how steam
engines used to be classified based on the number of each kind of wheels
(eg. 4-6-0) -- is such a classification still used?

Thanks very much.

< Vic

--------
vic@cs.email Dept. of Computer Science
..!{uunet|noao}!arizona!vic University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721

From: CRDECF::APTE 11-SEP-1990 19:30:26.15 <apte@crdecf.email

Subject: Rajdhani Engines

Date: 11 Sep 1990 18:32:00 -0500


CC: APTE
Subj: Rajdhani Engines


The engines of the Rajdhani continue to be an enigma to me. I remember
raising this question earlier on s.c.i. and I don't think I got a
satisfactory answer. As of last December, the Bombay -- New Delhi Raj
was still being hauled by 2 diesel engines. This inspite of the entire
Bombay - New Delhi line being electrified. Why? I have been in an
electric locomotive (that ranks as one of life's highlights, but thats a
different story :-)). The speedometer in the engine was marked upto
100 m.p.h. (160 km.p.h.) I agree that speedometer marking is not a direct
measure of the fastest speed a train can go, but it must surely give
some indication. Furthermore the one I traveled in (WCAM class) seemed
to be hauling a 19 bogie train at 110 km.p.h. quite easily. Based
on this background, some questions:

1) Why are electric locos not used for the Bombay-Delhi Raj?

2) How does "double-heading work" - does each loco take half the load?
in other words, if one loco can haul 9 bogies @ 120 km.p.h., does that
mean 2 can haul 18 @ the same speed? Somehow that sounds too simplistic.

3) As someone pointed out in an earlier discussion the so-called diesel locos
are really diesel-electric, i.e. the fuel powers an electric generator,
presumably DC, which runs the train. How does DC compare to AC in terms
of speed and power? And what is the voltage/wattage of the AC lines
used in India? Are they 3-phase or 1-phase?

Inquiring minds... and all that sorta rot ;-)

Good to see the IRFCA bounce back to life!
Cheerio
Pushkar
-------

From: Mukunda Kantamneni <kmukunda@umaxc.email

Subject: GM loco

Date: 11 Sep 1990 22:00:00 -0500



Nice to see that IRFCA is active again with lot of discussion
on locos!

There was an interesting article in Car & Driver (Sep 1990) on
GM's new diesel loco called SD-60. Though, this loco appears
to be much advanced and powerful, the basic layout is similar
to our WDM? class that delivers 2500 BHP. Further, this engine
is powered by a 2 stoke diesel while our WDM class are powered by
4 stroke engines.


SOME OF THE SPECIFICATIONS AS GIVEN IN CAR & DRIVER:


Vehicle Type: mid engine, 12 wheel drive, 3 passenger
2 door, diesel-electric locomotive.

Base Price: $1,400,000

[I recall our WDM? locos were about Rs 3,500,000 in mid
seventies?]

Options on test
vehicle: A/C, refrigerator, electronically heated
windows, air-ride seats, comfort cab.

Standard
accessories: electronic control system with display,
cab heaters & defrosters, toilet.

Sound system: 99-channel two way rail road radio


Engine:

Type Turbocharged and intercooled 2-stroke V-16
diesel, welded steel block and iron heads

Bore X Stroke 9.06X11.00 in, 230.2x279.4mm

Displacement 11,353 cu in, 186,037 cc

Comp ratio 16.0:1

Fuel System GM direct injection

Power 4100 BHP @ 900 rpm

Torque 23,925 lb-ft @ 900 rpm

Redline 900 rpm


Drive Train:

Transmission 1 speed DC electric with electronic
traction control


Dimensions & Capacities:

Weight 390,000 lb

Fuel Capacity 5000 gal

Oil Capacity 395 gal


Manf's Performance ratings

Top speed 70 mph

Fuel
consumption 187 gal/hour @ full power




-mukunda

From: Vijay Balasubramanian <vbs@plumpy.email

Subject: Rajdhani Exp., IR Locos., etc.

Date: 12 Sep 1990 14:30:00 -0500


Hi Folks,

Good to see the IRFCAites back in action!

Jishnu writes:
> That's because in those days WDM4 was the only class certified for
> 130Kmph, which used to be the top speed of the Howrah Rajdhani. The
> fastest electric those days was WAM4 (120 Kmph). Since then various

My apologies for indicating in my earlier mail that the Rajdhani was hauled
by a WDM2 (instead of WDM4). Makes sense because WDM2 is geared for a
maximum speed of only 120 kmph. The Hwh.-Delhi Rajdhani was introduced in
1969 (?) with a maximum permissible speed of 120 kmph. and a booked speed of
115 kmph.

(Booked speed = max. speed at which the train needs to travel in order to
maintain the time-table schedule, if running on time. Max. permissible speed
= max. speed permitted on a particular section. Train needs to run at this
speed only to make up for lost time. Most of the zonal railways fix the
difference between max. perm. speed and booked speed as 10% although
NR fixes this as 12 1/2 % )

This was later increased to 130 kmph. max. speed with 120 kmph. booked speed.
The Bombay Rajdhani was introduced in 1972 with max. speed of 120 kmph. and
booked speed of 115 kmph. I believe, now, both the Rajdhanis run at a max.
speed of 120 kmph. with a booked speed of 115 kmph. However, the Bombay
Rajdhani has a sligthly higher commercial speed (= 83.? kmph.) than the
Howrah Rajdhani (= 82.? kmph.). The speeding up of the Bombay Rajdhani is
mainly due to the electrification of the Ratlam - N. Delhi section, and the
consequent use of a WAP1 (or WAP3?) to haul the Rajdhani
in this stretch.


In reply to Puskhar's questions:

> 1) Why are electric locos not used for the Bombay-Delhi Raj?

As mentioned earlier, the Rajdhani is hauled by a WAP1 in the Ratlam-N. Delhi
portion of its journey. It continues to be hauled by the twin WDM2 between
Bombay Central and Ratlam because:

The Bombay-Ratlam section is not completely on AC traction; Bombay-Virar
is DC. Hence, there is a need for a high speed version of a dual current
electric loco., as the conventional WCAM1's can reach a max. speed of only
90 kmph. At present, IR has no plans of manufacturing a high speed version.
However, the introduction of the novel three-phase AC electric loco. (hopefully)in the near future should overcome this problem, as this
loco. can switch to DC supply
if needed (sounds strange, right?).

Why not have the WAP1 run extended till,
say, Vadodara instead of cutting it short at Ratlam? Well, Ratlam has a dieselshed which has facilities to handle maintenance of the Rajdhani locos, which
differ from the normal WDM2 locos. in that they have special bogies, etc.
Note that the Raj. has a 20 mt. halt at Raltam (ever since the Bombay-Delhi
route was completely electrified)


> 2) How does "double-heading work" - does each loco take half the load?
> in other words, if one loco can haul 9 bogies @ 120 km.p.h., does that
> mean 2 can haul 18 @ the same speed? Somehow that sounds too simplistic.

I would guess so. The double-heading of the Bombay Rajdhani increased its
coach capacity from 9 to 18. The interesting part is, there is no driver in
the second loco. (next to the coach); automatic coupling between the locos'
controls ensures that both locos. behave in the same manner.


> 3) As someone pointed out in an earlier discussion the so-called diesel locos
> are really diesel-electric, i.e. the fuel powers an electric generator,
> presumably DC, which runs the train. How does DC compare to AC in terms
> of speed and power? And what is the voltage/wattage of the AC lines
> used in India? Are they 3-phase or 1-phase?

I am not sure about the differences in speed/power but AC traction is
definitely cheaper than DC. I am not sure why! I remember hearing
something to the effect that in AC traction, substations can be placed further
apart than in DC, due to the smaller variation in voltage with fluctuations
in current drawn. I would appreciate some comments on it. Also are the
transmission losses in AC lower than those in DC?

AC traction in India is 25 kv single-phase. DC traction is operated at
1500 v.


Responding to Vikraj's questions:
> Will some kind person please take the time to explain to me what the different
> engine designations (eg. WDM4, WDM2, WAM4, WAP1, etc.) mean? Are these
> designations universal or are they peculiar to the IR? I remember how steam
> ngines used to be classified based on the number of each kind of wheels
> (eg. 4-6-0) -- is such a classification still used?

The first letter indicates the nature of the gauge used:
W = broad gauge Y = meter gauge N = narrow gauge

If three letters are used, the second indicates the type of traction employed
A = AC traction C = DC traction D = diesel
Steam locos. have only two letters in their designation
AC-DC locos. have both A & C to indicate their dual nature

The next letter indicates the type of load hauled
M = Multi-purpose meaning either passanger or goods
G = goods
P = passanger
S = shunting

The number indicates the type of loco. in a particular class. e.g. both
WAG1 and WAG5 are broad-gauge, AC locos. meant for hauling goods trains, but
WAG1 is an eight-wheeled loco (Bo-Bo type) but WAG5 is a much recent,
twelve-wheeled loco. (Co-Co type)

.............................................................................
Hope I didn't bore you with my ramblings.


Regards,

Vijay

From: Atul A. Patankar <patankar@ms.email

Subject:

Date: 12 Sep 1990 16:54:00 -0500


Hi,
I am new to this group and letme extend my greetings to all of you.

I happened to read some mail and I have a question :
If there exist locos with dual traction handling (AC/DC) capabilities,
are they being used for passsenger trains? I know for sure that passenger
trains on the Bombay Nagpur run have to change locos at Igatpuri where the
traction changes from AC to DC. This is true even in case of non-superfast
trains.

I also think that irrespective of the traction type, the motors are always
DC due to the nonfluctuating output. I think 2 sets of motors - each having
3 motors in series - are used in parallel.

Can someone explain the braking mechanism in trains - friction as opposed to
electromagnetic?

Thanx.
Atul.

From: anand <anand@top.email

Subject:

Date: 12 Sep 1990 17:25:00 -0500


Thanks for the informative post from Vijay Balasubramanian.

I was reminded of the interesting locomotives that used to work on the
DC portions of Central Railway. I believe that the only Crocodiles outside
of Switzerland were used here. I certainly remember many of these
magnificant engines in operation. They were made in the 1920's by SLM in
Winterthur, Switzerland. They were still in operation well into the
1970's. I remember they were used as bankers from Karjat to Lonavala.

I am sure that they have all been retired by now. Central certainly had
a diverse collection. I suppose they have by now all been replaced by
the characterless Chittaranjan units. Does anybody know if the ones that
looked like the GM "Covered Wagons" are still in operation?

R. Anand
anand@top.email

From: Vicraj T. Thomas <vic@cs.email

Subject: ac vs dc and a question about locos.

Date: 12 Sep 1990 11:57:00 -0500


Many thanks to Vijay for the detailed reply to my question.

I recall from the days of my youth that DC motors generate a greater torque
when they startup and are hence better suited to driving locos. AC motors on
the other hand had some other advantage -- I wish I can remember what it was.
Most household appliances (mixers, vaccum cleaners) have AC/DC motors which
supposedly have the advantages of both AC and DC motors. Any elec. engineers
amongst us?

I also remember reading that one of the reasons for continuing with DC traction
in the Bombay region was that because of the greater initial torque generated
by DC locos they could accelerate much faster than AC locos -- an important
consideration for the suburban (local) trains.

As for electrical transmission, AC has the advantage that it is much easier to
step-up or step-down the voltage using transformers. Losses are however
greater with AC lines because the transmission cable and earth behave like a
giant capacitor. We know how capacitors resist voltage changes -- something
that an AC line does all the time. Hence the "reactive" losses are greater on
AC transmission lines.

Yet another question: how do goods, passenger and shunting engines differ?

< Vic

--------
vic@cs.email Dept. of Computer Science
..!{uunet|noao}!arizona!vic University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721

From: J Mukerji <jis@mtgzx.email

Subject: Re: engine class.

Date: 12 Sep 1990 18:56:00 -0500


Excerpts from mail: 11-Sep-90 engine class. "Vicraj T. Thomas"@cs.email (521)

> Will some kind person please take the time to explain to me what the different
> engine designations (eg. WDM4, WDM2, WAM4, WAP1, etc.) mean? Are these
> designations universal or are they peculiar to the IR? I remember how steam
> engines used to be classified based on the number of each kind of wheels
> (eg. 4-6-0) -- is such a classification still used?

> Thanks very much.

WDM4, WDM2, WAM4 etc. are locomotive class designators used by IR. The
scheme goes as follows:

The first character designates the gauge of the locomotive.

W Broad Gauge
X ??? Standard Gauge maybe? noneexistent in IR
Y Meter Gauge
Z Narrow Gauge

The last alphabetic character (e.g. M in WAM4) designates the type of
use that the locomotive is primarily designed for.

G Goods
M Mixed
P Passenger
S Shunting

The characters between the first and the last alphabetic character,
(e.g. A in WAM4) if any designate the primary source of power. If there
are no such characters then the source of power is Steam. Otherwise:

D Diesel
C DC Electric
A AC Electric

Finally the number at the end (e.g. 4 in WAM4), if any, is just a serial
number of the design.

So for example:

WP is Broad Gauge Steam Passenger
WG is Broad Gauge Steam Goods
WS is Broad Gauge Steam Shunting
YP is Meter Gauge Steam Passenger
YG is Meter Gauge Steam Googs
WAM4 is Broad Gauge AC Electric Mixed Type 4
WCG2 is Broad Gauge DC Electric Goods Type 2
WAP1 is Broad Gauge AC Electric Passenger Type 1
WCAM1 is Broad Gauge AC and DC Electric Mixed Type 1

etc.

Wheel arrangement based classification is still used for designating
wheel arrangements. But from an operational perspective wheel
arrangements are not as important as what the locomotive is designed to
do. That is why a functional classification scheme like the one
described above is used in IR. Similar functionality based
classification is used in other countries too.

Hope this answers your question.

Jishnu Mukerji,
jis@mtgzx.email
+1 201 957 5986,
AT&T Bell Laboratories,
MT 3K-423, 200 Laurel Ave.,
Middletown NJ 07748

From: Shriram Revankar <revankar@cs.email

Subject: AC vs DC

Date: 12 Sep 1990 19:01:00 -0500


Vijay writes:

>I am not sure about the differences in speed/power but AC traction is
>definitely cheaper than DC. I am not sure why! I remember hearing
>something to the effect that in AC traction, substations can be placed further
>apart than in DC, due to the smaller variation in voltage with fluctuations
>in current drawn. I would appreciate some comments on it. Also are the
>transmission losses in AC lower than those in DC?

> AC traction in India is 25 kv single-phase. DC traction is operated at
>1500 v.

Let us assume

both engines running on DC and AC do the same amount of
work with the same efficiency (E).

and there is no reactive power loss.

Then the work done is Voltage(V) * Current(I) * E = work

as you said for AC traction if 25,000 V (single phase)supply is used,
the current is
I = work/(V*E)=0.00004*(work/E)

on the other hand, for DC traction the current is

I = .00067*(work/E)

The main losses in the power line are due to

Resistance(R) and capacitance(C)

resistive loss is major contributor: R*(I**2)
compared to the insignificant capacitive loss.

now the ratio of DC and AC power losses is

P(DC)/P(AC) = 277.78* (R_dc/R_ac)

so if the power lines are of same resistance, the DC line
has nearly 300 times more power loss.

The ease of high voltage transmission and the ease stepping it down
for normal usage and the availability of high power, high efficiency
semiconductor rectifiers makes AC transmission more attractive not
only for domestic and industrial usage but also for for DC-motor run
locomotives. Secondly, because of lower voltage drop (I * R) in
AC lines, substations can be further apart than they are for DC lines.

Shriram. :-)

ps. But because of high voltage and capacitance effects the AC
transmission line design is more complicated.

`Increase' in losses during rain is higher in AC line
because of higher voltage. Even then the total loss is much
lower than the DC power line.

AC supply is much safer to the supply sources(in case of hazards like
shorting or breaking of lines), because good isolation can be provided.


I guess I defended AC lines more than I should have.

From: J Mukerji <jis@mtgzx.email

Subject: Re: ac vs dc and a question about locos.

Date: 12 Sep 1990 19:29:00 -0500


Excerpts from mail: 12-Sep-90 ac vs dc and a question abo.. "Vicraj T.
Thomas"@cs.email (1374)

> Many thanks to Vijay for the detailed reply to my question.

> I recall from the days of my youth that DC motors generate a greater torque
> when they startup and are hence better suited to driving locos. AC motors on
> the other hand had some other advantage -- I wish I can remember what it was.
> Most household appliances (mixers, vaccum cleaners) have AC/DC motors which
> supposedly have the advantages of both AC and DC motors. Any elec. engineers
> amongst us?

In very simple terms DC motors have better torque characteristics at low
speed than AC motors running on a constant frequency AC feed. This
problem with AC motors can be overcome somewhat by arranging to feed
very low frequency AC to the motor at startup and then increasing the
frequency synchronously with the increase in speed of the motor. AC
motors have fewer moving parts, and specially they can be built
"brushless", i.e. with no commutator brushes to transfer power to the
rotating portion of the motor. This makes them less prone to failure and
less expensive to maintain.

In the past DC motors were prefered in all cases because it was very
hard to cram in the limited space available on board a locomotive, all
the electronics that is necessary to create properly wave-shaped AC at
variable frequency. In the recent past it has become possible to
miniaturize the necessary electronics sufficiently to make such AC
drives feasible. There are several classes of electric locomotives in
Europe that use AC drive now. ABB (ASEA Brown Boveri) and Siemens are
both big in designing the elctrical/electronic gear for such drives. In
the USA Amtrak has been experimenting with AC drive. There is an F40PH
that was converted to AC and designated F40ACH that has been undergoing
trials in the Philadelphia - Pittsburgh service on the Pennsylvanian.
There is a competely new class of Diesel locomotive designated the F69PH
that is undergoing trials on the Western routes of Amtrak - on the
Empire Builder between Chicago and Seattle in the winter and on the
Sunset Limited between Los Angeles and New Orleans in the summer. F69PH
is the prototype on which all future Amtrak diesels (the ADM100 and
ADM125) will be based.

> I also remember reading that one of the reasons for continuing with DC traction
> in the Bombay region was that because of the greater initial torque generated
> by DC locos they could accelerate much faster than AC locos -- an important
> consideration for the suburban (local) trains.

Considering the fact that the AC locos on IR have DC motors, I suspect
the real reason for continuing to use DC in Bombay is the daunting cost
and complexity of converting such a massive operation.

> As for electrical transmission, AC has the advantage that it is much easier to
> step-up or step-down the voltage using transformers. Losses are however
> greater with AC lines because the transmission cable and earth behave like a
> giant capacitor. We know how capacitors resist voltage changes -- something
> that an AC line does all the time. Hence the "reactive" losses are greater on
> AC transmission lines.

> Yet another question: how do goods, passenger and shunting engines differ?

Typically goods engines have high horsepower, a lower gear ratio
connecting the motor to the wheels, and heavier axle weight which
improves traction between whhel and rail. On the whole for a given
amount of horsepower they can produce much greater tractive effort or
pull on the drawbar than a passenger engine.

A passenger engine has a higher gear ratio connecting the motor to the
wheels. Often they have larger diameter wheels. They are lighter in
weight, and they also tend to have high horsepower. But in this case the
high horsepower is used to drive the wheels faster rather than to
produce more pull on the drawbar.

In the USA a typical example of a passenger engine is the AEM7 electric
used on the North East Corridor by Amtrak. It has a continuous HP rating
of 7000. In short bursts can produce upto 15000HP. But it is very light,
so it cannot pull trains longer than 12 cars, wheel slippage sets in
with heavier trains.. However, it can pull that 8 car train at upto
140MPH although they are certified for use upto 125MPH.

The WAM4 on IR is actually a pretty good Goods engine by world
standards. An example of an excellent goods engine is the SD60 that was
described in a message in this newgroup.

Shunting engines are typically low to medium horsepower, inexpensive to
operate, easy to run in both directions from a single cab etc.


Jishnu Mukerji,
jis@mtgzx.email
+1 201 957 5986,
AT&T Bell Laboratories,
MT 3K-423, 200 Laurel Ave.,
Middletown NJ 07748

From: Mukunda Kantamneni <kmukunda@umaxc.email

Subject: Train/Loco Brakes.

Date: 12 Sep 1990 18:46:00 -0500


> From @s.ms.uky.edu:patankar@ms.email Wed Sep 12 16:06:45 1990
>
> Can someone explain the braking mechanism in trains - friction as opposed to
> electromagnetic?
>
WDM? class Diesel locos have three different types of braking
systems; Dynamic/regenerative brakes, Vacuum and Air.

Dynamic Brakes: As you may aware the above class of diesel
locos have six DC series motors that directly drive each of
the six axels. When the dynamic brake is applied, these motors
will act as generators. The electricity generated is fed to
huge grid resister in the roof of the loco. A huge fan cools
the glowing grid wires.

Vacuum Brakes: This is for train braking (friction brakes).

Air Brakes: Locomotive's independant brakes. Again works
by friction. I have never seen using these!

The first two types of the brakes are used either in combination
or individually to stop/control the train.

Simply put it, the dynamic brake works something like down
shifting your car transmission, while the vaccum brakes works
like your friction brakes at the wheels.


-mukunda

From: CRDECF::APTE 13-SEP-1990 09:21:28.55 <apte@crdecf.email

Subject: Great Stuff

Date: 13 Sep 1990 08:22:00 -0500


CC: APTE
Subj: Great Stuff


It was great to read all the info that has been circulated in the past
few msgs. Thanx, Vijay, for answering my questions and everyone else for
their contributions.

Since the thread of the discussion is decidedly technical, and electromagnetic
to boot, let me raise another question in that realm, which I hope will
be of general interest. The MAGLEV of Germany, I read recently, interfaces with
the "rails" in the following way. The train's equivalent of wheels is "C"
shaped, and this "C" goes around the rails from the outside. Now, the rails
induce two perpendicular magnetic fields, one to hold the train against
them, and the other to propel it forward. Here's where it get confusing.
The book I was reading says that the train still needs overhead AC lines
to power it. So does that mean that the magnetic field is on the rails
is not strong enough to move the trains fast enough? (I wouldn't be
surprised!) And what are ballpark magnitudes of the fields we are talking
about here? They've gotta be really huge! And since the "C" does not touch
the rails, there's obviously no friction (indeed that's the whole idea of
the MAGLEV concept). In the absence of friction, what (if any) factor
inhibits speed? I believe that the Japanese have also prototyped their
version of the MAGLEV. Does that version have any differences from the
German one?

Appreciate your patience :-)

Pushkar
-------

From: Gopal Meempat <gopal@saguaro.email

Subject: steam locos

Date: 13 Sep 1990 09:19:00 -0500


I vaguely recall some arguments in favor of employing steam-powered locos
on the Indian Railway, in view of the abundance of coal in India. Could
someone who is more informed on this alternative post his/her comments ?
I would also appreciate some engineering specifications of steam-powered
locos as opposed to diesel/electric-powered locos. Thanks.

Gopal

ps. I am relatively new on this group, so I apologise if some of these
issues have already been discussed in the past.

From: Vijay Balasubramanian <vbs@plumpy.email

Subject: MAGLEV

Date: 13 Sep 1990 09:31:00 -0500


Hi Guys,

Thanks a lot for all the interesting and informative stuff about electric
traction and IR locos.


Here is something that I remember from an article in TIME about the MAGLEV
and the Japanese prototpye:

As Puskhar mentioned, the "C" shape of the MAGLEV underframe goes around
the "T" shaped rails. The excitation of powerful electromagnets
cause the ends of the "C"
below the rails to experience an upward attraction, thus, lifting the body
of the train. In contrast, the Japanese prototype runs in a "U" shaped
casing that surrounds it on three sides. Superconductors placed along the
sides and towards the bottom are used to create a repulsive force
so that the train
is suspended in mid air. In addition, rotating magnetic fields along the sides
propel the train forward.

The Japanese version is still a prototype as opposed to the MAGLEV
which is commercially operational. Maintaining the superconductivity of the
prorotype for the entire duration of its run is certainly an expensive affair.


Regards,

Vijay

From: anand <anand@top.email

Subject: Re: steam locos

Date: 13 Sep 1990 19:31:00 -0500


Although lots of coal is available in India, much of it is of poor
quality. In the pre-independence days, the railways used to operate some
of the best collieries in India. After independence, the railways have
gotten progressively worse quality coal.

I was recently told this by my roommate's father who was the cheif
operating engineer for many years on the Moradabad division for Northern
Railway. He said that in the 1960s it was a nightmare to find enough
good coal of suitable quality. Southern railway was one of the first to stop
steam operations on Broasd Gauge. Carrying the coal to the south was
getting expensive.

--
Anand
anand@top.email

From: Dheeraj Sanghi <>

Subject: Re: More Railway Trivia

Date: 13 Sep 1990 13:56:00 -0500


In article <90256.092210THS1@psuvm.email you write:
> Why not travel by Bullock Carts then? Speed is more of an issue to me
> when I see that Indian Railways often charges more for traveling by
> slower trains!!!

Indian Railways have two rates for second class travel, depending on
whether the train is passenger or express. Further, some of the express
trains have been designated as superfast trains and you pay a surcharge
to travel in them. Yes, there are trains which are express but run
fsater than some superfast trains on the same route, but it is an
exception not a rule.

> Example: Second class sleeper Calcutta to Delhi. Travel by Howrah-Kalka
> Mail, you pay less and cover the distance in about 24 hours. Often
> however, Kalka mail is solidly booked, so maybe you choose Howrah-Delhi
> Express. Now not only does it take about 34 hours to get there, you also
> pay more in sleeper charges and mileage.

You simply chose the wrong example. The price of a ticket is more on
Kalka than on Howrah-Delhi. Kalka express is a superfast train and you
have to pay the surcharge. The sleeper charges on both the trains are
same, despite Howrah-Delhi taking two nights.

>Tamisra Haran Sanyal
>ths1@psuvm.email
>ths1@psuvm.email


-dheeraj
--
Dheeraj Sanghi (h):301-794-6247 (o):301-405-2723
Internet: dheeraj@cs.email UUCP: uunet!mimsy!dheeraj
When you find you are on the side of the majority,
it is time to reform. - Mark Twain

From: Dheeraj Sanghi <dheeraj@cs.email

Subject: Re: More Railway Trivia

Date: 13 Sep 1990 18:36:00 -0500


>I can give lots of examples where passengers are faster than
>expresses, yes lots. The superfast surcharge is quite minimal when
>you compare that with the difference between passenger and express
>fares. However, the difference between speeds of superfast and
>ordinary express trains is quite dramatic. So, the correlation
>between the price you pay and the service you get is not high.

Frankly speaking I don't know of any example of a passenger train
being faster than express. On the other hand, I know quite a few
cases of superfast trains being slower than express trains. (that is,
if there are 10 trains between 2 stations, one could expect the
slowest superfast to be slower than the fastest non-superfast.)

>Well, the Indian railway charges keep changing so much. I know I
>have paid sleeper charges on per-night basis as well as a flat basis
>on different occasions. So what is it now? Don't forget that Howrah-
>Delhi Express takes a longer route (via Patna), and the charge is by
>actual mileage. I believe the excess mileage charge is more than the
>superfast charge levied on Kalka (which I believe is a mail, not an
>express).

Well, I have known a person who went from Howrah to Bombay via Delhi.
He took two Rajdhani Exp. It took him a total of 40 hours to reach
destination. If you don't get place in Indian Airlines and Geetanjali,
and you are rich, this option is quite good, time wise. Now should
he complain that he took more time than Geetanjali Exp. and paid
lot more than what he would have paid if he had got reservation in
Geetanjali. (Assume that he would have travelled by second AC sleeper
in Geetanjali too, and subtract the cost of food on Rajdhani.) The
fact is that if you take a train which covers longer distance, you
expect to pay more.

And just a trivia here. I don't have the latest budget information,
but until 31st Mar (or was railway budget also delayed this year?)
The ticket price difference (based only on distance) between Kalka
and Howrah-Delhi Exp. was 5 Rs. while the superfast charges on Kalka
were 6 Rs. So, Kalka was costlier by 1 Rs.

>Anyway the basic point is that a train that is 12 hours
>slower ought to cost much less. Or, when a train is called express
>it should really be an express, not a glorified passenger.

I agree with the second statement. I think that fare charged should
be based on 3 considerations: distance, speed, and additional services.

Indian Railways does charge more for longer distances. The policy of IR
is to charge more for faster trains. That is why they have different
fares for passenger and express trains. I would like to see a third
rate for superfast trains, which is significantly higher than express
trains. I would also like that there be well defined criterion for
designating a train as passenger, express or superfast, for example,
all trains with average speed between source and destination less than
40KMPH be passenger, all trains with average speed between 40 and 70
KMPH be express, and trains with higher speed be superfast. The
numbers could be different for different source-destination pairs.
IR also charges extra for extra services like reservation charges,
and sleeper charges. These charges could be either fixed charges
like reservation charges, based on distance, or based on time spent
in the train. (I would say that sleeper charges should depend on
number of nights and not on the distance.)

The overall point is that IR does take into account all three factors
in its pricing policy. Yes, the classification of trains at times is
improper, and yes, the superfast ought to charge lot more than just
6 Rs. extra. (Did they increase in this year's budget?)

>In the early 50's, the Toofan express went from Howrah to Delhi in
>26 hours, now it has been slowed down by at least 10 hours! Some
>progress! During the British days, steam traction often produced
>better speeds than what you get now by electric traction!

Most trains have been slowed down over the years, and I don't like
that mostly for emotional reasons. I have grown to love certain
trains, and I hate to see them slowed down. But don't forget that
IR has also introduced FAST trains since 50's. In 50's there was no
train that could cover the distance between Delhi and Howrah under
20 hours. The following trains cover the distance from Howrah to
Delhi in less than 26 hours:

Rajdhani: 17:20
AC Exp: 25:25
Kalka: 24:55

(I don't have the latest one, but the one before that which was in
force 6 months ago.)

Your statement that Steam traction often produced better speeds than
what we get now by electric traction is simply not true. Could you
give examples of some train hauled by a steam locomotive running
faster than 150 KMPH that WAP-1 engine runs regularly these days.

And now that you talk about British times, do you know that there was
a fourth class in the trains until early this century. (Actually it
was called third class, and the class that we came to know later as
third class was called Intermediate class.) People had to go in open
coaches with no bathroom facilities. In the Intermediate class there
were only wooden benches, though there were roofs also. Read some
book on history on Indian Railways, and you would realize that the
saloons you see in the movies were only meant for the very rich. The
poorer class has much better facilities today than anytime in the
past, especially during the British period.

Indian Railways is far from perfact, and lots need to be done to
improve its services, but we should give the credit where it is
due.

>Tamisra Haran Sanyal
>ths1@psuvm.email
>ths1@psuvm.email

-dheeraj

From: Swaminathan Srinivasan PHY <swami@carina.email

Subject: maglev

Date: 13 Sep 1990 20:50:00 -0500


How does the MAGLEV stop?

curiously,
swami

From: Shriram Revankar <revankar@cs.email

Subject: Re: maglev

Date: 14 Sep 1990 09:22:00 -0500


I don't know, but it seems obvious to me. Just turn on the
-ve magnetic pull, or turn on regenerative breaking.

Shriram :-)

The content of the individual messages displayed here is subject to copyright by the original authors and may not be reproduced outside the context of IRFCA without permission.
Note: This site is not officially affiliated with Indian Railways! The official web site of Indian Railways is: http://www.indianrailways.gov.in
Site contact: webmaster@irfca.org
Copyright © 2010, IRFCA.org. About IRFCA  Contact Us  Search this site  Site Map  Links   Acknowledgements  Legal Information & Disclaimers