1chan


[Return]
Name
Link
Subject
Comment
File
Password (for post and file deletion)

Supported file types are jpg, jpeg, bmp, gif, png up to 10 MB.
All images must be safe for viewing at work.
1chan Helpline: (512) 953-3619


File: 1551498276623.jpg (829.28 KB, 1300x897, 241483.jpg)

 No.6938

Just days ago Novocherkassk electric locomotive works, a division of Russian company Transmashholding, produced a prototype of 3ES5S (3ЭС5С) 12-axle 25 kV AC freight electric locomotive, a variant of 2ES5S series, noticeable as the first electric loco series with an all-Russian asynchronous traction drive.

Now, to why I write this. This is a single most powerful locomotive in history. Extrapolating the specs for 2ES5S, the 3ES5S has a maximum effective power output of MIND. SHATTERING. 16200 kilowatts.
That's 1.3 MW an axle, at wheels! (and by the way heres >>6911 my two cents on the rationale behind the per axle power output, so let's not dive into that "pfffh, whatever, you can stuff more kilowatts into a single motor!" again)

This loco consists of 3 4-axle sections (units, modules - whatever) which, as usual for such locos, de jure counts as a single locomotive. Also it has predictable 300 tons of weight in effort to back up all those kilowatts.
And this thing beats the previous formal record of a 16-axle 4ES5K (which BTW you guys were criticising for it's lack of per axle power output - now you're satisfied?) by more than 3000 kW.

Its intended use is likely to haul 7000+ metric ton trains on the quite harsh track profile of Far East of Russia. With 1.3 MW an axle it is clearly oriented for also improving train dynamics which should help in overcoming difficult grades.

So yeah. It's not that I brag about this thing or anything… awww, c'mon, just look at this beast! If only it wasn't kinda too ugly and unpretentiously looking for such an impressive thing. Anyway, thought you'd be interested to know.

 No.6939

Well i'm impressed. I'm curious about cooling, are there any issues with heat dissipation at those power levels?

 No.6944

File: 1551508456985.jpg (360.36 KB, 1230x820, 238580.jpg)

>>6939
Well, as long as you have adequately powered fans and enough of an electrical cross-section… Granted, the 16.2 MW figure is the peak, or short-term, power output, meaning that the cooling system is designed to handle this much of heat only for 30 minutes until the drive starts to overheat, though it doesn't mean that the figure is not true as most of the electric locomotives have some kind of short-term mode and their power output is usually listed as the peak output.
The hourly output of this locomotive is 13200 kW, and the continuous power output, at which there is a heat equilibrium in the system, is unknown for now, but most probably 12000 or 12600 kW. So there's a big headroom for Turbo Boost™ (PC guys will get it).

Although whether there were any actual issues or not I have no idea, this particular locomotive is just couple of days old, it's possible it has never even ride on its own for now.
And as for its smaller brother, 2ES5S (here it is on the pic related, not to confuse with 3ES5S), there were reported some issues with its drive, but that's barely any indicator, it's still in testing. And given the brand-new traction drive design, it's in for a long way until it is service ready. I hope they don't rush it into regular operation.

 No.7045

File: 1552633311138.jpg (642.74 KB, 1024x777, 4799.1299343808[1].jpg)

Multiple units debate is wrong, older diesel locomotives were built into A units and B units like the russian loco in OP.
It's all good.

 No.7048

File: 1552676148452.jpg (89.95 KB, 800x498, BNSF_SD40-2B (1).jpg)

>>7045

I'm not sure if that's an accurate comparison. I would guess that the Russian version is effectively permanently coupled, while in the US, we quickly moved to individually coupled units after the introduction of the FT (which IIRC was drawbar connected between A and B units, creating pairs of two bodies that were counted as a single unit) so we could make all sorts of variations of A-B-A, A-B-B-B-B-A, A-A-B-A-B-A, etc. In that context, each unit was a separate building block of power. You can run the A unit alone, two A units together, and many B units had basic controls for hostling purposes. If the middle unit of this Russian beast breaks down, can you drop it off at a siding and continue with just the two A units like you could with an American E/F unit?

 No.7050

File: 1552679916926.png (797.34 KB, 1807x1406, multi-unit.PNG)

>>7045
There is no debate. As I said earlier: the multi-unit locomotives are an established practice here and it's not like you can agree or disagree they are a thing.

In our context the multi-unit locomotive is a single locomotive because it is intended, tested and certified as a whole. Which is, apparently, the approach also accepted in China and Sweden/Norway (on their IORE and Dm3 locomotives, at least by some accounts).

And apart from this, there often are technical justifications to consider this a single locomotive, as opposed to the North American A+B units which apparently can be bunched together almost however you like. Which I explained here >>7007, >>7008 here >>7010 and here >>7014

Actually, heres the main arguments marked with arrows on the pic. A bit too haphazardly for a proper explanation but that was in the middle of the internet argument, what do you expect? To not bring up this whole topic again, I will probably reply with this picture should someone once again confuse a Russian concept of a multi-section loco with just using a bunch of A/B units in North American practice.

 No.7052

File: 1552680683219.jpg (388.7 KB, 1300x904, 238502.jpg)

>>7048
Seriously, I explained it, like, twice in a row already… I know multi-unit/section concept is confusing but it can't be THAT hard to grasp?

Technically it's not permacoupled, you could swap the sections in the depot WITH IDENTICAL ONES from other loco if you like, or (maybe) even shuffle them in some particular way BUT the loco is configured in such a way that sections effectively compliment each other, and it's not just identical A/B units which you could arrange literally any way you want. Each section plays a role inside the locomotive, hence they are designated uniquely and not just by whether or not they have a cab. And yes, in the majority of cases, they CAN NOT operate independently.

And nobody drops anything. You could shut down broken section (however on modern drives it is much more practical to shut down individual motor or converter) if it experiences drive problems but if the malfunction threatens the integrity or the ability to work of the whole loco (even if confined to one section, for example shattered bearing or braking equipment failure), the whole loco stops for quick field repair attempt/waiting for help, exactly because no matter how many sections there are (or even if it is an ACTUAL multi-loco system from, for example, 3 sections from two dual-section locomotives), while on the line IT IS TREATED AS WHOLE LOCOMOTIVE.

This is a whole different approach. So yes, I will clarify again, the thing you see in the OP (by the way pic related is its smaller brother 2ES5S, for lack of other 3ES5S pics) is not A+B units slapped together, that said, it's not permacoupled either, but it is a single, whole locomotive rated for 16.2 MW peak. Nobody forbids reviewing it by individual sections but it would be an incorrect approach.

 No.7055

Damn man, I've never seen anyone get this worked up about actual trains on this board. Usually the only thing that gets this kind of response is furries.

 No.7057

File: 1552700990619.jpg (983.07 KB, 1370x850, 236742.jpg)

>>7055
Worked up? I'm honestly trying to explain the damn thing and this is the best response I get, "LOL U BUTTHURT MAN CHILL OUT"?

What made you think this explanation is a butthurt? The amount of text? You expect me to explain a confusing and somewhat complicated topic in two sentences? Or you expect me to explain nothing at all (as how it is mostly done on this board)?

I just brought some actual related discussion on the board which consists 90% of uninformative abstract patches of text barely related to one another and 5% of occasional off-topic discussion and the mod of this board is calling this butthurt. If you don't want people to have ACTUAL DISCUSSIONS here then why don't limit posts to one a day or reduce already very modest symbol limit to that of Twitter? Or you expect everyone to just shut up and post pictures? Because with that attitude it looks like the best attempts in the related discussion here is casually calling train designs you are unfamiliar with "bullshit". Ok, NOW I'm butthurt.

And if it is (oh I hope it is) about by the excess of CAPS and bold, it's not what you think, the topic is confusing enough and my posts are TLDRy enough so I highlight the key statements or contextually accent phrases which I think will help at least draw attention to the main points. Probably should've done this all via bold but hey, caps is a "bold" for lazy people.

If I somehow misunderstood the tonality then welp, sorry for wasting your time on this 5-paragraph rant (in case you did read it at all). But hey, it's Internet, always expect the worst from your interlocutor.

 No.7058

>>7057
I said literally nothing about being butthurt. I wasn't going to tell you to chill out. I wasn't even going to call you crazy - until, that is, you put words in my mouth. Take a chill pill and step back and take a good hard look at the situation and maybe you can see why your arguments are being dismissed.

 No.7060

>>6938

Chonky beast. How fast are the typical speed limits in the far east? 16.2MW in 300 tonnes assuming ~0.25 adhesion would need to be 80+km/h just to avoid slipping at max power :)

 No.7067

File: 1552751134895.jpg (988.1 KB, 1370x850, 236743.jpg)

>>7058
But did you? Did you take a look at the situation, from the side? A person who actually shares some foreign (and VERY, if not impossibly hard to find for En speaker, try my words) train details on the board dedicated to discussing trains, which is largely (save for couple of occasional users) ignored, until someone very occasionally sees some thing he didn't immediately understand and calls it bullshit, without even trying to dive deeper into that very chunk of info. Because apparently that's what one normally does on a dedicated board for railway enthusiasts!
And here you go, talking about dismissing my arguments, if not for seeming butthurt (perhaps I did misunderstand the wording, that barely changes anything now), then obviously for being overly enthusiastic - on the enthusiast site… So apparently now we have "enthusiast" board turned into regular casual nonsense. Seriously, I've seen popular YouTube comment threads with more dedicated and rich discussions.

If it sounds somewhat entitled, then because it is. I think that after all this piles of informative text largely unnoticed, or "dismissed", and lost to history I have just a little bit of moral right to rant somewhat rudely about the state of the board I now contributed so much into. I hate those "it used to be better" types, but this time yes, it used to be better.

You know, I was going to say sorry if turns out I DID misunderstand the wording or the tonality of your remark, hence unnecessary escalating the thing, but now… screw that. Maybe I did misunderstand but now I see that the overall attitude is more or less still the same as I assumed: "Hah, look at this neeeeerd, being so worked up about trains on the train board, haha".
<…>

 No.7069

File: 1552751791884.jpg (901.26 KB, 1350x850, 218910.jpg)

<…> (second part of) >>7067
>>7058
And EVEN if by some chance it was a remark of gleeful surprise (with comparing the train discussion to furries?) then it only confirms my words, the real discussion is so gone on this board now you do a surprised remark upon seeing one.

And seriously, if it really IS that you were actually pleased to see a proper discussion, than consider stretching the text limit a bit. I think it doesn't even reach mere 2000 symbols, even Instagram has more.

You know, there's no hard feelings really. I needed to speak out anyway and this looked like a perfect moment. I'm proud that for once I managed to spark an actual related discussion and stir up this swamp just a little and none of those seemingly arrogant comments gonna change that.

Anyway, back on track.

>>7060
>16.2MW in 300 tonnes assuming ~0.25 adhesion would need to be 80+km/h

The adhesion coefficient for an electric locomotive is about 0.39 (on dry track, without using the sand I think), so there will be at least 100 tonne-forces of traction to invest this power into. There aren't exact numbers yet but I would assume that short-term speed would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 65-70 km/h, well within even the modest speed limit. By my observations I think freights on Far East can frequently do about 80 km/h.

P. S. Note that pic related is not 3ES5S, but 3ES5K, the less powerful DC-motor (with impulse feed) predecessor of this beast, the main workhorse of electric freight transit in the Asian part of Russia.

 No.7070

>>7067
>>7069
My dude, you are correct that this is a board specifically for railway enthusiasts. It's all we do. You should see how many people are on the ban list with the reason "Trains or GTFO".

(On that note, if you see a ban notification about posting porn, ignore it. Your IP address cycles pretty frequently and someone posted porn today using an IP address that you previously used once. I gave it a two week ban so hopefully you won't cycle back to that IP before it expires.)

Anyway, I was just making an offhanded remark about how, from my perspective, this wasn't a true single locomotive. You're the one that became argumentative right off the bat, taking it so personally that one might think you designed the locomotive yourself and I just spat on it.

Detailed discussions are always welcome here. Not everyone chooses to participate in them, but they are welcome nonetheless. Creating a hostile environment isn't going to help your argument. While super detailed discussions aren't as popular, it doesn't mean they're unwelcome. You just have to realize that it's not the norm for this board.

 No.7071

File: 1552767722631.jpg (448.18 KB, 1350x904, 242472.jpg)

>>7070
I think that's the main point of our disagreement, you somehow approximate "argumentative" (especially in case of the original discussion, where it rather means "rich with reasoning") and "hostile". My problem was that you think/thought that lots of text and reasoning, which BTW is more an explanation rather than argument, look hostile - and that's on a (nominally) tech-savvy board. Although as stated before it might be my problem with the board, really.

Yes, at first I was perturbed with your remark, but not because you "spat" on something but because this sounded quite ignorant by the "official" standards set on this board, and protected largely by you yourself, as in, being all-train friendly and with "However simplified or detailed you want to discuss trains, someone will be there to match it" (this was your words BTW).
BUT my unhappiness with it was confined to the first paragraph of my response, and then I was mostly only explaining as well as I could. And I'm glad other people were drawn to discuss that topic.
Something similar happened with K-POW recently when he said that I "don't understand trains" or something and while, maybe, at first a bit of overreaction was there (that comment seemed a bit bitter, but he later claimed it was not), but despite that I tried my best to explain the technical point.

And that's why I complained about the board which is incredibly protective of its "trainness" seemingly acting very casually, because that's a common trait of casual discussion: lots of text and reasoning = LOL U BUTTHURT M8.

Let's admit, we're all being huge nerds here, it's our dirty secret, so since there are perfect conditions to be nerds around here, it seems kinda strange to point fingers at those who act bit nerdier than others.



[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] [Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]