|
|
|
|
|
Streamlining of head and tail |
|
evaluated |
|
|
|
In a long passenger train only about 10% of the aerodynamic drag are due to the front and tail ends. Nevertheless, there is some potential for further improvements on the aerodynamics of the front nose of high-speed trains.
|
|
Technology field: Aerodynamics and friction
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General information
|
|
|
General criteria
|
|
|
Environmental criteria
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Impacts on energy efficiency:
|
|
|
|
|
Energy efficiency potential for single vehicle: < 2% |
|
|
|
|
Energy efficiency potential throughout fleet: < 1% |
|
|
|
|
|
The research at DB AG on optimisation of nose shape revealed a potential for reduction of Cx and thus airdrag of about 5% for the front vehicle of an ICE 2. Given that the front vehicle only accounts for about 10 20 % (depending on train length) of the total air resistance, the overall potential for reducing aerodynamic resistance is only about 0,5 1 % and the effect on total traction energy demand even smaller (0,3 0,6 %). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other environmental impacts: neutral |
|
|
|
|
|
(no details available) |
|
|
Economic criteria
|
|
|
Application outside railway sector (this technology is railway specific)
|
|
|
Overall rating
|
date created: 2002-10-09 |
|
|
|
© UIC - International Union of Railways 2003 |
|
|
|