Railwayclub.info main
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
23.06.18 , 05:06

Login with username, password and session length
Home | Help | Search | Login | Register | References | Blogs | Contact Information

railwayclub.info: train travel answers, travel deals

  discussion

    Related questions

      Укрзализныця купит сразу несколько дизельных поездов

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Reply | Print
Author Topic: Укрзализныця купит сразу несколько дизельных поездов  (Read 15460 times)
sergius
Active user

Posts: 1857


View Profile
« Reply #80 on: 18.03.17 , 23:03 »
Share Reply with quote

logist, ну а от чего так?
Там же цена повыше должна быть, что, по идее, должно перекрыть возросшие затраты. Начальная цена за 1 шт. составляет 177 млн. гривень. Первый состав был купленный за 109 млн. грн., что в пересчете на сегодняшний курс доллара составляет примерно 135-140 млн. грн. Ну да, еще возросшая цена электроенергии и все-такое, но, имхо, это не должно сильно влиять на цену.
Тут бы для сравнения еще и цену Песы узнать. Чуть более года назад на других форумах упоминалась цена в 6 млн. долл., что примерно равняется 168 млн. грн. по курсу 27, но сейчас уже ссылку не найду.
« Last Edit: 18.03.17 , 23:03 by sergius » Logged
Aleksio
Active user

Posts: 208


View Profile
« Reply #81 on: 19.03.17 , 07:03 »
Share Reply with quote

LG за 7 PESA 730 ML заплатили 37,7 млн.€.
http://www.railbaltic.eu/en/news/lietuvos-gelezinkeliai-presented-the-new-diesel-train-pesa/
Logged
sergius
Active user

Posts: 1857


View Profile
« Reply #82 on: 19.03.17 , 12:03 »
Share Reply with quote

Quote
The train can reach the speed of up to 160km/h.
Wow.

Изменили требования в тендере. Например, теперь есть несколько возможных габаритов.

Logged
Jyraff
User

Posts: 106


View Profile
« Reply #83 on: 19.03.17 , 13:03 »
Share Reply with quote

Изменили требования в тендере. Например, теперь есть несколько возможных габаритов.
Так це вже давно. Суті це не змінює - у скарзі КВБЗ є непогана порівняльна табличка, яка показує, що вимогам відповідає тільки песа (для порівняння наведені ДПКр2, 730М, РА-2, ДП-М, ДЕЛ02, Flirt DMU-3).
Logged
Andersen
Active user

Posts: 2039


View Profile
« Reply #84 on: 19.03.17 , 14:03 »
Share Reply with quote

Changed terms of reference, still too specific
What do you mean, "вже давно?" There wasn't anything about the габаритов in the TOR/TD as of March 7.
It has indeed been added. But the problem is that
- "no less than 156 seats,"
- "no less than 1140 kW engine rating,"
- hydraulic transmission (could also be mechanic),
- steel-body (could be aluminium or even composite material) and
- delivery in 2017
are far too specific requirements to be coincidental.
Thus the Kremenchuk factory should have a good case at the anti-monopoly committee provided a fair hearing.

Low capacity
The biggest problem seems to be that 157 seats is a catastrophic low number for 70 meters of train (69,4).
The DPKr2 DMU houses 289 seat in 73,5 meter of train. That is of course too much, too tight.
The 74,3 meter Stadler Flirt3 DMU houses 214 seats ( 4 short cars, 3500 mm wide, for Estonia) even with a separate engine unit in the middle occupying around 5 meter of train length and with electrical equipment taking up several meters behind the driver's cap above the power axles in both ends.
The right number of seats will be around 240 seats in a ~75 meter wide body DMU.

A heavy train
Another problem is that the PESA 730 is far too heavy. At 144 tons / 157 seats is weighs in at a hefty 917 kg per seat.
The Stadler Flirt3 comes at 159 tons / 214 seats = 743 kg per seat.
With underfloor mounted engines and a number of seats closer to 240, the weight might be as little as 650 kg per seat.
The weight is important for energy consumption, for acceleration and especially if the trains are used south of Ternopil or at the Rakhiv mountain line.

Underpowering and no regenerative braking
Even for a <700 kg per seat train the power rating should be more than 1140 kW. 1300-1400 kW would be more adequate and should be combined with battery aided regenerative braking for savings of 15-25% on the fuel bill and boosted power capabilities for acceleration, for instance when ascending into the Carpathian mountains.
Then the dynamic might reach 0.80 - 0.85 m/s2 instead of the specified 0.60 which is substandard for a regional train in Ukraine accelerating frequently from stations or from weak spot like switches and crossings. The ДПКр2 has an unacceptable slow acceleration at 0.40 m/s2, extending the travel time considerably.

The cost
Sergius, the price of the ДПКр2 might come to 140 million today, if the the price and exchange rate at the time of delivery is used for the calculation. But it might be a better idea to use an exchange rate closer to the period of manufacture, which might be closer to 8:1 for the UAH/USD.
110 million / 8.15 ~ 13.5 million USD, which would be a very high price for a 3-car DMU, reflecting an urge by the factory to recover the exchange rate loss inflicted by the sharp depreciation of the Hrivnia.
The effectively average exchange rate for inputs of parts and labor might be 10:1 or 12:1 if the train was assembled in 2014.
At 12:1 the price would be 110 / 12 x 27 ~ 250 million UAH today, so why would 177 million be a high price?
6-7 million Euro seems to be the right price for such a train.  

Why?
So why is UZ ordering a 157 seat train? Too heavy, too low capacity and underpowered?

PS Don't forget Bombardier's Talent 2 DMU which also comes with tilting capabilities. And the Newag Volcano DMU.
« Last Edit: 19.03.17 , 16:03 by Andersen » Logged
Iwan
Active user

Posts: 3607


View Profile
« Reply #85 on: 19.03.17 , 16:03 »
Share Reply with quote

Какой салон закажут - такой и будет.
Ага, только КВСЗ сделает его стандартам из прошлого. Ну, не получается у них пока на современный лад делать, что либо пассажирское.
Давно не заглядав на сайт ŽOS Vrútky a.s., інтер'єр вагону другого класу (локотяга):



Нічого складного... було б тільки бажання.
« Last Edit: 19.03.17 , 16:03 by Iwan » Logged
Andersen
Active user

Posts: 2039


View Profile
« Reply #86 on: 19.03.17 , 16:03 »
Share Reply with quote

Yeah, according to the TOR, the passenger comfort and cabin interior is up to further negotiation between the sides...
« Last Edit: 19.03.17 , 16:03 by Andersen » Logged
Sergio
Active user

Posts: 4149


View Profile
« Reply #87 on: 19.03.17 , 22:03 »
Share Reply with quote

I don't think that requirements to capacity and delivery term is too specific; they are essential.
Engine power, transmission type, and unit material = these requirements are redundant but not too specific.
Another thing is capacity depends on route (number of passengers and distance).

By the way, having searched the Internet, I found only 3+3 seat configuration with not so comfortable seat co - location  Face-to-face without a table. It is too dense.
I think configurations with more than 200 pax total for given car length could not be comfortable at all.

Calculation constuction weight per pax ratio is useless; this ratio has never been used in transportation mechanic engineering.
Important things are thrust to weight an weight per axle. For Pesa 730 they are OK. The weight of ukrainian DMU is unknown (is it mistery?), I calculated weight using movie, read the weigh written upon the car. The result is not so gud for US - total weigh is 64 + 61 + 63  = 188 tonnes (!).

Acceleration speed also depends on route. For such routes as Minsk - Gomel, Vilnius-Minsk or Kyiv - Gomel there is no reason to have blazing acceleration since stops are not frequent at all.
But for this competition ДПКр2 shows the worst result.
 
Electric brake is a good thing, I am afraid it will be too expensive for UZ.

Finally, I would like to add that choosing DMU not limited by technical specification.
Both Stadler and Pesa have low floor dors. Both of S and P have only two engines (three engines means higher maintenance cost and less reliability).
And, i think, the most important things - P and S have proven experience and some reputation in building DMUs, whereas Ukrainian-made construction in fact belongs to previous rolling stock  Probably Stadler is better. But not th
Logged
Andersen
Active user

Posts: 2039


View Profile
« Reply #88 on: 20.03.17 , 01:03 »
Share Reply with quote

I don't think that requirements to capacity and delivery term is too specific; they are essential.
Engine power, transmission type, and unit material = these requirements are redundant but not too specific.
Why would anyone order a train for >156 seats? Why 156? Why not 160? Or 150? Or 200 for that end?
If you don't have a specific model in mind?
And the engine specs of >1140 kW. Hmmm. Why not 1150? Or 1100? Or 1200? Why 1140?
Another thing is capacity depends on route (number of passengers and distance).
Yes, but use, passenger numbers and traffic patterns are bound to change radically over the next 40 years. So buying rolling stock for certain routes is really an illusion. Rolling stock has to be flexible.
By the way, having searched the Internet, I found only 3+3 seat configuration with not so comfortable seat co - location  Face-to-face without a table. It is too dense.
I think configurations with more than 200 pax total for given car length could not be comfortable at all.
Why do you keep on with your 3+3? Has anyone here mentioned it? Is it written somewhere in the terms of reference?
As mentioned before, the Stadler DMU houses 214 passengers seated in 2+3 rows, even using many train meters for transformators and engines.
Have you calculated the space inside the train since you make such drastic conclusions? How should the distances between the rows be to be comfortable enough to justify a ticket price of 2 euro cents per km? Is for instance a row pitch of ~90 cm "not comfortable at all?"
Calculation construction weight per pax ratio is useless; this ratio has never been used in transportation mechanic engineering.
It is nonetheless the weight you need to accelerate from standstill so why would it be irrelevant?
Important things are thrust to weight  
The higher the weight, the more thrust needed, right? Which in the translates into more fuel and higher operational costs, right?
The 2M62 loco using 1500 liters of fuel to lift itself plus 12 sleeper cars (almost 1000 tons) from Rakhiv to Kolomyia is a heavy everyday financial burden.
DMUs should be lightweight to lower the fuel consumption.
The modular build Danish intercity train IC3 comes for instance at 674 kg per seat in the 59 meter 3-car set. At 1320 kW it has more power than the current tender to move the only 97 tonnes train and runs therefore with a good acceleration of 1.0m/s2 and a top commercial speed of 180 km/h.
and weight per axle.
Which is important for the train's impact of the railway infrastructure, sure. But I was talking about operational energy costs.
For Pesa 730 they are OK. The weight of ukrainian DMU is unknown (is it mistery?), I calculated weight using movie, read the weigh written upon the car. The result is not so gud for US - total weigh is 64 + 61 + 63  = 188 tonnes (!).
Good that the PESA has a low impact on the railhead (within the limits for axle weight) and that the engines are indeed capable of moving the train. But that should really be the case with all offered rolling stock.
The Ukrainian DMU can actually be considered light weight. 188 tonnes /289 seats = 650 kg per seat :)
Acceleration speed also depends on route.
No, unfortunately is doesn't. Because the railways in Ukraine are plagued with weak spots, bad crossings, low speed switches and curves forcing trains to slow down. Often trains have to accelerate from passing bad spots at ~35 km/h even if the service is non-stop over long distances like Kyiv - Gomel.
For such routes as Minsk - Gomel, Vilnius-Minsk or Kyiv - Gomel there is no reason to have blazing acceleration since stops are not frequent at all.
Blazing acceleration would be something like 1.2m/s2. The TOR speaks about 0.6m/s2. I argue for a moderate capability of 0.85m/s2.
But for this competition ДПКр2 shows the worst result.
Exactly. So it doesn't fulfill the desired requirements unless it is repowered. Which is why Kruykov should win the anti-monopoly case but lose a fair tender until the can come up with the train Ukraine needs.
Electric brake is a good thing, I am afraid it will be too expensive for UZ.
It is too expensive NOT to use it since it saves fuel every day.
Finally, I would like to add that choosing DMU not limited by technical specification.
Both Stadler and Pesa have low floor dors. Both of S and P have only two engines (three engines means higher maintenance cost and less reliability).
And, i think, the most important things - P and S have proven experience and some reputation in building DMUs, whereas Ukrainian-made construction in fact belongs to previous rolling stock  Probably Stadler is better.
And more expensive.
« Last Edit: 20.03.17 , 10:03 by Andersen » Logged
Sergio
Active user

Posts: 4149


View Profile
« Reply #89 on: 20.03.17 , 10:03 »
Share Reply with quote

I really do not understand where the weigh per pax ration comes from.
I insist that it is useless and never been calculated in vehicle design.

It is absurd indeed. Your calculation of this ratio means DMU becomes 1.5-2 times less efficient if we convert 2nd class to 1st or premium.

For cost calculation another formula has to be used, because carriage weight impacts on several things. These are unit cost and fuel consumption. last one is important for low dense configuration or carriage is not 100% full.

As for acceleration - I really do not understand what is the reason to have acceleration ratio more than 1
I have a good example. Route Minsk - Vilnius is difficult. It is crossing Dnipro-Niamunas watershed and has many climbs and curves. But both Belarus and Lithuania chose P730 for this route, and seems everything is ok.
Only one complain from me (as pax) - P730 has very limited space for luggage. But for дпкр2 with 3+3 configuration it will be total disaster. So I vote for low dense and dedicated pace for bags.
And, finally, for future load better not to guess how many pax will use DMU in 40 years (it is impossible). Better to have ability eigher to add carriages or ure use multiple train control.
« Last Edit: 20.03.17 , 11:03 by Sergio » Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Reply | Print
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.8 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.149 seconds with 20 queries.