 |
Re: SMART - DMU and EMU questions
Author: Max Wyss
Date: 09-21-2018 - 08:57
The SMART trains do not have locomotives; they have powered cars (that's why they are called DMU). In order to operate normally, each of the power cars has to provide power, therefore all installed diesel engines will run. (I am not even sure if a train could limp to the workshop if one diesel engine its power train fails).
As BOB2 stated, the cost of electrification can vary considerably. In some of the documents I read when answering about the German fuel cell trains, they state 1 million Euro per track kilometer. However, that may go up if there is not much of aditional infrastructure around (such as high- and middle-voltage distribution and substations.
I also read about a rule of thumb (again in Germany) that already for less-than-1-train-per-hour schedules, an electrified system will have the lowest lifecycle cost, compared to diesel operation. Lifecycle means 30 to 35 years in this situation; it may even be extended to 40 years; the rolling stock would need a general update of the power electronics after some 20 years, but the rest can easily last 35 to 40 years.
Nippon Sharyo claimed that it would be not that difficult to convert the vehicles to electric operation. I guess it would be possible, because the installed power is not that big, meaning that the transformers and power electronics would not be that big (especially if operating at 60 Hz). The drives are electric already, which would simplify things. One would, however, have to make some calculations whether it would not be better to try to sell the DMUs and acquire new rolling stock (something in the FLIRT range, for example).
One thing which might be worth looking at would be a conversion to either full battery operation, or, to follow the newest hype conversion to fuel cells. The SMART trains are not thaaaat different from the Coradia LINT 54, which was used as a base for the iLINT in Germany. The question is how easy and economically and ecologically hydrogen could be produced.
As BOB2 stated, the cost of electrification can vary considerably. In some of the documents I read when answering about the German fuel cell trains, they state 1 million Euro per track kilometer. However, that may go up if there is not much of aditional infrastructure around (such as high- and middle-voltage distribution and substations.
I also read about a rule of thumb (again in Germany) that already for less-than-1-train-per-hour schedules, an electrified system will have the lowest lifecycle cost, compared to diesel operation. Lifecycle means 30 to 35 years in this situation; it may even be extended to 40 years; the rolling stock would need a general update of the power electronics after some 20 years, but the rest can easily last 35 to 40 years.
Nippon Sharyo claimed that it would be not that difficult to convert the vehicles to electric operation. I guess it would be possible, because the installed power is not that big, meaning that the transformers and power electronics would not be that big (especially if operating at 60 Hz). The drives are electric already, which would simplify things. One would, however, have to make some calculations whether it would not be better to try to sell the DMUs and acquire new rolling stock (something in the FLIRT range, for example).
One thing which might be worth looking at would be a conversion to either full battery operation, or, to follow the newest hype conversion to fuel cells. The SMART trains are not thaaaat different from the Coradia LINT 54, which was used as a base for the iLINT in Germany. The question is how easy and economically and ecologically hydrogen could be produced.
