Transport Tycoon Forums

Conditional Zenith wrote:Well that does, but from my (limited) understanding, acceleration and noise are much less important in this regard. While noise does demonstrate wasted energy, generally the amount of sound energy involved in things isn't very large.

I guess so, but the acceleration can be regained from the grid, with the regenerative braking.

I believe the Voyager has something along the lines of regenerative braking, which it uses in something regards its DEMU engines.

Conditional Zenith wrote:Well that does, but from my (limited) understanding, acceleration and noise are much less important in this regard. While noise does demonstrate wasted energy, generally the amount of sound energy involved in things isn't very large.

Noise is never taken into account in efficiency calculations. While sound is a wasted energy it is incredible insignificant compared with energy wasted as heat.

However, noise (sound energy) is a FAR bigger pollutant then heat energy, and indeed noise emissions have to meet stringent targets (anything above 100dB is damaging to human health, anything above 60dB is considered a nuisance by most councils).

Now while all that wild life in the country side that gets scared/woken up won't complain, but you will annoy a lot of people by creating a massive racquet every time your train pulls out the station (just stand next to a hst for an example).

You will also get vibration pollution from heavier (diesel) trains rather then electric ones.


And that was a very interesting read Andel, thank you.


And for who thinks burning garbage is a good idea - if you leave it to decompose you can collect the methane from it and use that for electricity. Several landfill sites in the US and the UK do this (and I assume elsewhere).

John wrote:Several landfill sites in the US and the UK do this (and I assume elsewhere).

Indeed, I did a work experience session in the summer with a waste management company and they had 8 closed landfills and 1 active one and on all of them they collected the Methane and ran it through, essentially, a Combine Harvester engine to drive the generator (in fact, their back up was a modified agricultural vehicle engine). It's not a massive source of electricity but it will provide power for some of the nearby villages to the sites. Great idea, in my opinion.

Dave Worley wrote:I believe the Voyager has something along the lines of regenerative braking, which it uses in something regards its DEMU engines.

Indeed it does - electricity is generated, taken round to the top of the train where there are large resistors which convert the energy to heat where it is dissipated as heat. I've always wondered if it's possible to stick a pantograph on the top of them and return the energy to the grid on the (very large sections) that the Voyagers operate on.

Or stick it in batteries to be used when it next accelerates (ala Prius) - which in theory wouldn't be to long after it had decelerated...

John wrote:Or stick it in batteries to be used when it next accelerates (ala Prius) - which in theory wouldn't be to long after it had decelerated...

That's ingenious! Which may help to soften the blow that the Class 221 Voyager is the most polluting passenger train in the UK, being only slightly better than a car*.

*According to a survey by the DAfT. Which assumes a 30% average loadings. Now who here has been on a Voyager with less than 50% loadings! (Nonetheless it's still polluting).

JamieLei wrote:Now who here has been on a Voyager with less than 50% loadings!

Rheotorical, I know, but I have, between Dundee and Edinburgh! Although... saying that I've been on a few which have 150% loadings!

I have I might have been on one when the loading was... ummm - 3.

andel wrote:I have I might have been on one when the loading was... ummm - 3.

Did the smelly toilet problem get that bad?

JamieLei wrote:

andel wrote:I have I might have been on one when the loading was... ummm - 3.

Did the smelly toilet problem get that bad?

At that stage a toilet had never even been used.

Ameecher wrote:

JamieLei wrote:

andel wrote:I have I might have been on one when the loading was... ummm - 3.

Did the smelly toilet problem get that bad?

At that stage a toilet had never even been used.

I can confirm it had and it wasn't for a smelly one.

Just a coincidental BBC video news report published today:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7829634.stm

And those are certainly not one-offs, as I have first hand experience of the Oxford - Birmingham route in the rush hour (it was tough enough trying to get through to the shop). The problem lies from the fact that most 5-car services are now deployed on the (equally overcrowded) Plymouth - Bristol - Birmingham segment, leaving Reading with 4-car sets on a mainly commuter route. Also coupled with the fact that there's a glut of disabled toilets (sorry Andel!) which take up considerably more room than conventional ones (12 seats compared to 4 on the Pendos). There are 4 easy-access loos on a 5-car Voyager, compared to 3 on a 9-car Pendo.

JamieLei wrote:

John wrote:Or stick it in batteries to be used when it next accelerates (ala Prius) - which in theory wouldn't be to long after it had decelerated...

That's ingenious! Which may help to soften the blow that the Class 221 Voyager is the most polluting passenger train in the UK, being only slightly better than a car*.

*According to a survey by the DAfT. Which assumes a 30% average loadings. Now who here has been on a Voyager with less than 50% loadings! (Nonetheless it's still polluting).

I know... Although I assume they examined it and decided it was too expensive/complicated to install.

Interestingly fly wheel technology is coming on in leaps and bounds - with F1 cars conducting trials (these aren't your parry people mover fly wheels - these are high tech beasts, spinning at 10,000rpm in vacuums)


And such surveys always require further examination, especially the agenda of who is paying for them. A 30% average load seems a little low, and what was the average load assumed in the car (4? Or the more realistic 1?). They also aren't comparing like for like - they are comparing the most efficient (city) cars with the voyager. The voyager wasn't designed to be environmentally friendly, it was designed to get people from A to B (it's more of a 3L estate then a yaris). And remember, statistics can tell you what ever the statistician wants them too, don't believe anything you read in the papers - it is probably heavily biased to make it more of a story.


Oh, and JameiLei - people are asking you questions in your screenshot thread, go answer them!

That's been a problem over here for many years. How to balance the obvious advantages of electrification with its drawbacks? Diesels are more flexible, but expensive and polluting. "Dual mode" locomotives haven't worked out so well. Maintenance cost for catenary is hideous, adn the cost is prohibitive unless you have a lot of traffic. Conversely, the "time on track" to maintain catenary works against really busy lines like the Long Island Railroad (LIRR).

China ran into a problem last winter. Their electrified rail lines hauling coal lost catenary in an ice storm. So, no coal was getting to the power plants. Soon there was no electricity getting to the rail lines, so there was no coal getting to the power plants, etc. etc.

Here's an idea: Use Class 5 AT locomotives burning clean, carbon neutral wood pellets in a Porta firebox with a catalyst in front of the superheater.

http://5at.co.uk/

Sounds like a perfect cycle for a fuel cell hybrid- a Honda FCX, if you will, rather than a Toyota Prius. And add my neat trick (which somebody else already patented) of using the energy from braking to turn water into hydrogen to feed the fuel cell. Not perpetual motion, but it helps solve the problem of hydrogen fuel storage. Use batteries, a flywheel, or a ultracapacitor stack to handle the peak loads on acceleration (as with the Honda FCX) and the fuel cell handles the load at cruising speed very nicely.

We're finding out over here that the more severe the start-and-stop cycle, the better Hybrids perform. For long distance cruising, an efficient conventional vehicle is the better choice.

JamieLei wrote:

John wrote:Or stick it in batteries to be used when it next accelerates (ala Prius) - which in theory wouldn't be to long after it had decelerated...

That's ingenious! Which may help to soften the blow that the Class 221 Voyager is the most polluting passenger train in the UK, being only slightly better than a car*.

*According to a survey by the DAfT. Which assumes a 30% average loadings. Now who here has been on a Voyager with less than 50% loadings! (Nonetheless it's still polluting).

JamieLei wrote:There are 4 easy-access loos on a 5-car Voyager, compared to 3 on a 9-car Pendo.

There are actually 3 on both 4 and 5 car Voyagers.

The idea being that Virgin were going to introduce a "Club Class", which is also why there are 3 on a 9-car Pendo, one for each class.