• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Fastest accelerating main line DC EMU?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Skoodle

Member
Joined
26 Apr 2010
Messages
372
Great - now I'll have to ride a 5 car 378 under the wires to find out. I've been told the 5 car 378s are slower than 4 car on DC.

Yes and no. AC has always had better acceleration properties than DC. When the 378s were extended to 5 cars, a software update was not done for the traction packs at the time (no idea why). After upgrading they are pretty damned good!

The issue is the Watford DC Line. Due to the power supply problems there, none of the dual voltage /2 units have been upgraded as any of them could be working it. Which means when a dual voltage unit is used on the East London Line they run incredibly slow and sluggish.

There are 12 200kW (268hp) traction motors on a 5-car 378, with a total power output of 2400kW, however it's not always used to the max when pulling away in 'notch 4'. The amount of energy applied to each powered bogie, or in fact how much braking force is required, is dependent on the passenger loading of that particular carriage.

If you're traveling on the East London Line, and your train is on time, it is highly unlikely you will experience any feeling of amazing acceleration. The same applies to running on restrictive aspects. We won't be using full acceleration. South of New Cross Gate is more likely where you will feel it. You can get up to 60mph halfway between many of those stations with ease, but it's just not done. In the tunnel sections, most drivers won't even touch 'notch 4', due to the gradients and many linespeed changes, we just don't need to take it all the way up quickly.

To give you an idea on how fast it can accelerate, you can get up to 30mph halfway between Rotherhithe and Canada Water (southbound), with an uphill gradient and fully loaded. That is the same speed that northbound trains will be doing at New Cross Gate before going over the flyover.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

DerekC

Established Member
Joined
26 Oct 2015
Messages
2,448
Location
Hampshire (nearly a Hog)
I suspect the Class 700s will get the medal for acceleration at low speed. They have 50% axles motored and lots of kW - specified to achieve 1 m/s/s up to 30 mph on AC (less on DC due to current limit). The Crossrail Class 345 will be similar (not sure what motored axle % they have but the acceleration spec is the same).
 

Mikey C

Established Member
Joined
11 Feb 2013
Messages
8,297
I suspect the Class 700s will get the medal for acceleration at low speed. They have 50% axles motored and lots of kW - specified to achieve 1 m/s/s up to 30 mph on AC (less on DC due to current limit). The Crossrail Class 345 will be similar (not sure what motored axle % they have but the acceleration spec is the same).

Unlike the 700s, the 345s won't be operated in 3rd rail mode (certainly not initially), so in terms of this thread, it's not something we can test!
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
8,298
Unlike the 700s, the 345s won't be operated in 3rd rail mode (certainly not initially), so in terms of this thread, it's not something we can test!

But they have to be convertible to 3rd rail.
345s being geared for 75mph should also do better.
 

D365

Veteran Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
13,210
But they have to be convertible to 3rd rail.
345s being geared for 75mph should also do better.

How about the Class 710s that will operate on the Watford DC?
 

DerekC

Established Member
Joined
26 Oct 2015
Messages
2,448
Location
Hampshire (nearly a Hog)
But they have to be convertible to 3rd rail.
345s being geared for 75mph should also do better.

Depends on the details of the two specs and how Siemens and Bombardier have interpreted them. Both Cl.700 and Cl.345 specs require 1 m/s/s from start. To meet a lower top speed Cl.345 will need less installed power (drag being probably very similar). In a drag race between the two (seems unlikely!) the winner will be the one which can keep up its "constant torque" 1 m/s/s acceleration to the higher speed before the power limit kicks in. You would need the full spec and the design details to answer the question, although gut feel says that the Cl.345 ought to get ahead until it runs out of oomph at higher speeds. However I have a feeling that I read somewhere that the Cl.345 spec has a twist in the tail because of the very high requirement for regenerative braking efficiency, which actually required more axles and higher powered motors than you would expect for propulsion - in which case it could win all the way until its speed limiter kicks in. All on AC, of course, and assuming that there is no AC current limit, which can become an issue.
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
16,077
Location
St Albans
... All on AC, of course, and assuming that there is no AC current limit, which can become an issue.

Which raises the issue, will we be considering the geothermal impact of running 4MW+ trains on high intensity stopping services through tunnels under London in decades to come?
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
8,298
Depends on the details of the two specs and how Siemens and Bombardier have interpreted them. Both Cl.700 and Cl.345 specs require 1 m/s/s from start. To meet a lower top speed Cl.345 will need less installed power (drag being probably very similar). In a drag race between the two (seems unlikely!) the winner will be the one which can keep up its "constant torque" 1 m/s/s acceleration to the higher speed before the power limit kicks in. You would need the full spec and the design details to answer the question, although gut feel says that the Cl.345 ought to get ahead until it runs out of oomph at higher speeds. However I have a feeling that I read somewhere that the Cl.345 spec has a twist in the tail because of the very high requirement for regenerative braking efficiency, which actually required more axles and higher powered motors than you would expect for propulsion - in which case it could win all the way until its speed limiter kicks in. All on AC, of course, and assuming that there is no AC current limit, which can become an issue.

That is exactly why is said "should " originally and I had slight memory lapse they are 90mph. Also the 345s should be slightly lighter as they have comparatively fewer bogies etc. so should be 10-15tonnes lighter overall than a 10 car 700 if one existed...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Which raises the issue, will we be considering the geothermal impact of running 4MW+ trains on high intensity stopping services through tunnels under London in decades to come?

Given there are issues with tube trains then yes (a Jubilee frequency limitation till cooling is added to some parts of the pre 1990s tunnels)
 

coppercapped

Established Member
Joined
13 Sep 2015
Messages
3,339
Location
Reading
Which raises the issue, will we be considering the geothermal impact of running 4MW+ trains on high intensity stopping services through tunnels under London in decades to come?

This has been considered by the designers - and as far as anyone can be sure, designed out.

(Hint: Simulation technology is really quite advanced these days).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top