Technical- economical comparison of Maglev and...

Technical-economical comparison

of Maglev and High Speed Systems

Witt,Enders/24.04.2006/060424_Presentation_L-Blow.ppt/Page 2 of 29

Technical-economical comparison ofMaglev and High Speed Systems

Content

1. Basis of the LCC Analysis Method2. Comparison of the Technology between Wheel-on-Rail and Maglev3. System Comparison 4. Identification of the Quantity and Cost Frameworks 5. Analysis of the LCC 6. Summary of Evaluation

Basis of the LCC Analysis

Termination of Operation

Initial Operation

Operation

Development

Construction

Prototype

Serial-Production

Waste disposal Life-phases

ConstructionProduction OperationCost determination

Cost development

Determination and development of LCC

Life-cycle phases

Cost Element:Failure costs of the propulsion system in the operation phase of the life cycle.

ComponentPropulsionSystem

Cost TypesCost type :Failure Costs

Life-cycle: Operation

Life-cycle phases

Cost Matrix Model

Dissassembly Disposal

Special tools

Scrapping

Vehicles

Initial equipment

Training Trial Operations

Initial Operation

Investment Operation

Termination of operation

Waste Disposal / Re-selling

Operations

Operational disturbance

Spares Inventory

Maintenance

Repair

Preparation

Consumption parts

Spares

Special work tools

Energy

Induced costs

Disposal

Financial costs

Personel

n Simplified LCC Model for the comparison of Railway Systems

Comparison of the Technology betweenWheel-on-Rail and Maglev Technique

0,2 – 0,51 kg/cm²(approx.) 3)

Low area loadLittle wear

No contactMaglev (Transrapid)

2,6 – 4,55000 – 10000 kg/cm²(approx.)1) 2)

High point loadHeavy wear

Through contactsWheel-on-rail

Track main-tenance costs in

percentage of initial capital

Mechanicallystressed due to

carrying (static load)

Load EffectFunction of carrying

guiding andpropulsion

Type of guidedsystem

Mechanical stresses and costs of track maintenance

1) Passenger coach and ICE end power car respectively

2) Mean additional dynamic element for wheel-on-rail approx. 30%

3) Mean additional dynamic element for maglev approx. 10%

Maglev system Wheel-on-rail

PropulsionCarrying

Guidance Guidance

PropulsionCarrying

gradient (max 4%)

gradient (max 10%)Transrapid(Propulsion integrated in guideway)

Wheel-on-rail(Propulsion in the train)

Alignment Parameters

Transrapid

300 km/h

1400m1590m

3200mICE

Transrapid

2825mat 400 km/h

Transrapid

200 km/h

Curve radius

Crest and Sag of the High Speed Systems

Wheel/Rail System ICE3 Maglev Transrapid

Crest Sag Crest Sag

Vertical Acceleration 0,5 m/s² 0,6 m/s² 0,6 m/s² 1,2 m/s²

Design Speed 200 km/h 6.400 m 5.200 m 5.150 m 2.600 m

300 km/h 14.400 m 11.700 m 11.600 m 5.790 m

330 km/h 17.400 m 14.200 m 14.000 m 7.000 m

400 km/h - - 20.600 m 10.300 m

450 km/h - - 26.000 m 13.000 m

Guideway

At grade guideway Typ III

2,75 m

0,4 m 6,19 m

24,76 m 1 m

Elevated guideway Typ II

Elevated guideway Typ I

49,536 m

– 10

System Comparison

Total mass:

Number of seats (standard config.):

Number of sections:

Specific mass per seat:

318 t (247 t unladen)

446 (approx. 36t)

5 (approx. 64 t/car)

0,63 t/seat

Equipment16%

Passengers11%

Bodywork22%

Mass balance Cost balance

1) 80 kg per person with luggage2) Laden mass (passengers and equipment)3) Basis configuration of TR 08

Equipment11%

Bodywork27%

Assembly/Commis-sioning

Length of vehicle: 129 m

Batteries3%Batteries

Magnetic drive, etc.Hovering frameLevitation/guidingsystem;Eddy-currentbrake;Electricalequipment

Magnetic drive, etc.Hovering frameLevitation/guidingsystem;Eddy-current brake;Electricalequipment

System Comparison

Total mass: 442 t (408 t unladen) 2)

Number of seats (standard config.): 415 (approx. 33 t)1)

Number of cars: 8 (approx. 55 t/car)Specific mass per seat: 0.99 t/seat

Equipment26%

Passengers7%

Bodywork20%

1) 80 kg per person with luggage2) Laden mass (i.e. including passengers)

Equipment18%

Assembly/Commis-sioning10%

Length of vehicle: 200 m

Bodywork27%

Running gearEnergy SupplyPropulsion(7%)OnboardcontrolAux. groups

Mass balance Cost balanceRunning gearEnergy SupplyPropulsion (13%)

OnboardcontrolAux. groups

System ComparisonVehicle

Parameter Wheel/Rail Maglev System

Carriages/Sections per Train 8 5

Seats 415 (+ 24 in the dining car) 446

Operational speed 300 km/h 450 km/h

Max. engine power 8000 KW 25000 KW

Net weight of the train 409 t 247 t

Weight / Seat Approx. 930 kg Approx. 550 kg

Total length of train 200m 128 m

Width 2,95 m 3,70 m

Heigth 3,89 m 4,16 m

Axel load 17 t (2,1 t/m) 2,2 t/m

Wheel on Rail SystemParameters

System Comparison

Energy Supply Propulsion Vehicle Signal & Control System

Vehicle

Cable along track

Brake adjuster/Brake resistors

Power Station 3~ 110 kV 50 Hz

3~ 20 kV 50 Hz

1~ 110 kV 16 2/3 Hz

1~ 15 kV 16 2/3 Hz

Overhead catenary 1~15-kV-16 2/3-Hz

Linear motor

Alternating Current converter

Incoming energy converter

Transformer Substation High-voltage transformer

Energy converter transformer

Outgoing transformer

FM Locomotive Transformer

Alternating Current converor

Traction motor Gear Box

Power Station

BLF BLT

Contact rail Radio

Subsystems for Maglev and Wheel/Rail System

System ComparisonComparison of general system structure

Subsystem Maglev Wheel on rail

Vehicle Maglev vehicleVehicle-OCS

Vehicleincl. Propulsion components and OCS

Operations controlsystem Operation center,

control facilities,Radio facilities

Signal box, ETCS

Propulsion/Conductor rail

Substation (incl. current converter),Incoming current converter, Intermediate

circuit, Braking chopper,Inverter, Output converter,

Track cable, Stator windings,Feeder rail

Overhead catenary

Energy supply Power Station, local energy network (3~ 110 kV 50 Hz),

High voltage converter,3~ 20 kV 50 Hz

Power station,railway energy supply network

(1~ 110 kV 16,7 Hz), SubstationGuideway At grade, elevated At grade

System Comparison

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Transrapid run

ICE 3 run

System Comparison

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Class-146 + 5 double-deck coaches

Metrorapid (DU airport – DUI Hbf.)ICE-T (class 411)

ICE 3Class-425 EMU

Class-145 + 5 double-deck coaches

( a : mean acceleration)

Rail systems

= 0,23 m/s²

aa = 0,36 m/s²

aa = 0,46 m/s²

aa = 0,78 m/s²

aa = 0,32 m/s² 1)

aa = 0,27 m/s²

1) Vmax = 200 km/h; = 0,41 m/s²a

System Comparison

Wheel/Rail modifiedMAGLEV

MAGLEV

running time including timetable reserves

32 min. 32 min. 21 min.

Design Speed 300 km/h 246 km/h 450 km/h

Energy supply Substation 15 kV Substation 20 kV Substation 20 kV

Traction energy consumption

62,2 GWh/a 44,1 GWh/a 89,6 GWh/a

secondary energy consumption

6,2 GWh/a 13,2 GWh/a 13, 2 GWh/a

Energy consumption

Identification of the Quantity and Cost FrameworksCost Structure of the system comparison

Investment Costs Operational CostsInfrastructure costs

Land requirementGuideway / trackPower supplyPropulsion/feederOperation control systemNoise protection

Vehicle CostsOther Costs

FacilitiesPlanning costs

Personnel costs

Energy Costs

Maintenance Costs

Identification of the Quantity and Cost FrameworksComparison of the Investments Costs

iremen

Guidew

ay/ tr

Propuls

ion/ fe

Operat

ion co

Other c

Vehicle

Total in

Cost Group

. € ICE

Transrapid(with cost reduction

Transrapid(without cost reduction

Comparison of Personnel Costs

Identification of the Quantity and Cost Frameworks

Operation Management

Train Personnel Station Personnel Cleaning of stations

Cleaningtrains

Administration Total

EMPLOYERS

ICETransrapid

Comparison of Maintenance Costs

Identification of the Quantity and Cost Frameworks

PropulsionEnergy Supply

Feeder

Energy Supply

Operation ControlSystem

Stations

Guideway

Vehicle

ICE Maintenance Costs

Maglev Maintenance Costs

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

System Comparison

Maintenance costs

Energy costsTotal

MaglevICE

Operation materials

Operation personel

Analysis of the LCC

MaglevICE

Periodic Cost Development

Analysis of the LCCTotal Cost Development for Maglev and for Rail

-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

Wheel/Rail

Maglev

Maglev (with costreduction)

Noise emission

89869291

758584

80 km/h 200 250 300 400 450

200 km/h 400 km/h300 km/h80 km/h 250 km/h 450 km/hTr

Journey time Comparison

Distance [km]

Times to/from terminals: Maglev and WoR: 35 minAircraft 80 min

ICE 3 300 km/h

Maglev 450 km/h

Aircraft

n Journey time

System Comparison

Hourly performance of carriers

Headway [min]

Maglev, 10 sectionsWheel-on-Rail, two ICE 3Maglev, 5 sectionsWheel-on-Rail, one ICE 3B777-300A 320

Summary of Evaluation

n Potential Cost Savings of the High Speed Maglev System

n High Speed Maglev System has Lower Costs than the Wheel-on-Rail System

n High Speed Maglev System has Lower Maintenance Expenses than the Wheel-on-Rail System

n High Speed Maglev System has Lower Life Cycle Costs than the Wheel-on-Rail System

n Environmentally Compatible Operation

n Macro-economical Benefits

Technical- economical comparison of Maglev and...

Documents

Transcript of Technical- economical comparison of Maglev and...

Maglev paternoster

Maglev trains

STEM MAGLEV PROJECT - Skinners · PDF file2 Introduction to maglev principles Follow the link for information on maglev trains and wind turbines: maglev\about maglev.docx

SCIENCE of MAGLEV Scientific Concepts Seen in Maglev Vehicles.

Maglev Ppt

Maglev Guideway Construction (Yamanashi Maglev Test Line)

Maglev Trains.ppt

maglev display

COMMITTEE PRINT - transportation.house.gov

Maglev Train

Sunon DR (Dust Resistant) MagLev Motor Fan - aelhk.net MagLev presentation.pdf · 3 Advantages of DR MagLev • Sunon DR MagLev Motor Fan uses the MagLev technology with new design

Maglev Final

Principle of Maglev and Yamanashi Maglev Train

Maglev Report

Presentation Maglev

Maglev Windmill

Maglev Competition

MAGLEV TRAINS

Maglev Technology

MagLev - · PDF fileSunon 16 MagLev 15 10 1999 Q4 ( MagLev) MagLev -- MagLev MagLev Magnetic Levitation System Sunon 1999 2003 Sunon MagLev