|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General information
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Description
|
|
|
General criteria
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status of development: test series |
|
|
|
|
|
In the field of secondary suspensions, besides wide-spread use of tilting there have been numerous attempts and research efforts. ADtranz in Sweden has looked into "semi-active" electronically-controlled lateral dampers for the X2000 tilting train. Similar efforts have been done at ABB, Alstom and others. In Japan hydraulic and pneumatic actuators have been tested on the WIN350 train.
Implementation of active primary suspensions is still further away. Some research has been conducted in the Netherlands for the Rotterdam tram as well as in Germany and Austria. The Copenhagen S-trains with (LINK!) KERFs do not use active suspensions in the strict sense used here, but represent an important development in this direction.
An international research consortium "Mechatronic technologies for trains of the future" (funded by the European Commission) is currently studying the potential of these and other mechatronic developments for future train design. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time horizon for broad application: in > 10 years |
|
|
|
|
|
In the field of secondary suspensions, besides wide-spread use of tilting there have been numerous attempts and research efforts. ADtranz in Sweden has looked into "semi-active" electronically-controlled lateral dampers for the X2000 tilting train. Similar efforts have been done at ABB, Alstom and others. In Japan hydraulic and pneumatic actuators have been tested on the WIN350 train.
Implementation of active primary suspensions is still further away. Some research has been conducted in the Netherlands for the Rotterdam tram as well as in Germany and Austria. The Copenhagen S-trains with (LINK!) KERFs do not use active suspensions in the strict sense used here, but represent an important development in this direction.
An international research consortium "Mechatronic technologies for trains of the future" (funded by the European Commission) is currently studying the potential of these and other mechatronic developments for future train design. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expected technological development: highly dynamic |
|
|
|
|
|
(no details available) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Motivation:
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Weight reduction
- Reduced mechanical complexity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benefits (other than environmental): big |
|
|
|
|
|
Reduction of wear and tear
Less wear on wheels and track through improved curving capability
Weight reduction
Active steering makes two-axle bogieless vehicles feasible, offering
advantages such as
- reduced mechanical complexity (which of course is paid for by a higher
degree of electronic control complexity)
- reduced vehicle weight
- reduced traction/braking requirements
- reduced energy consumption
- reduced track damage
Extra functionalities
A mechatronic approach may bring added value of a different kind, e.g. the
integration of the suspension, guidance, drive and braking sub-systems which
today are designed and controlled separately. The use of differential torque
control to achieve active steering or guidance is a step towards higher degrees
of system integration. In addition, condition and fault diagnosis for
maintenance purposes could be provided at low extra cost, making use of the
sensors fitted for mechatronic control. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Barriers: high |
|
|
|
|
|
Technological inertia
Primary suspensions are an extremely fundamental and safety-critical
sub-system of a railway vehicle. Therefore it will not be easy to replace the
well-known and mature bogie technology by innovative technologies.
Safety and reliability
Primary suspensions are still confronted with a number of safety problems.
More research is needed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Success factors:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actively controlled running gear meets very high acceptance barriers due to
doubts about safety and reliability. Success factors are:
Thorough risk assessment
Make a thorough risk assessment of the whole vehicle rather than running gear
alone.
Communication strategy
In order to overcome scepticism, a convincing communication strategy is
essential. The focus should be put on successful use of active controlled
mechanical elements in other industries:
- automotive: Anti-lock braking system (ABS), Active stability control
(ASC)
- aerospace: fly-by-wire etc.
But also in railways, tilting trains are an example of successful
introduction of active control elements and are seen by experts as the "tip of
an iceberg" (Goodall, Kortüm 2000) that could facilitate introduction of
mechatronic solutions in other fields. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Applicability for railway segments: high |
|
|
|
|
Type of traction: electric - DC, electric - AC, diesel
|
|
|
|
|
Type of transportation: passenger - main lines, passenger - high speed, passenger - regional lines, passenger - suburban lines, freight
|
|
|
|
|
|
(no details available) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grade of diffusion into railway markets:
|
|
|
|
|
Diffusion into relevant segment of fleet: 0 % |
|
|
|
|
Share of newly purchased stock: 0 % |
|
|
|
|
|
Technology not marketable yet. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Market potential (railways): highly uncertain |
|
|
|
|
|
Implementation potential of active primary suspensions is highly uncertain. therefore it is presently impossible to assess the market potential. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Example:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Environmental criteria
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Impacts on energy efficiency:
|
|
|
|
|
Energy efficiency potential for single vehicle: (no data) |
|
|
|
|
Energy efficiency potential throughout fleet: (no data) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other environmental impacts: positive |
|
|
Economic criteria
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vehicle - fix costs: medium |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vehicle - running costs: significant reduction |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Infrastructure - fix costs: none |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Infrastructure - running costs: reduced |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scale effects: high |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortisation: (no data) |
|
|
Application outside railway sector (this technology is railway specific)
|
|
|
Overall rating
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Overall potential: very promising |
|
|
|
|
Time horizon: long-term |
|
|
|
|
|
Active running gear could in long-term perspective revolutionize the design and layout of rolling stock with beneficial consequences for train mass, energy efficiency, noise reduction etc. Although this lane of development is marked by many uncertainties, intensive R&D efforts seem justified. |