coasterdude_1
Mega Poster
Do any of you guys know how much a standard sit-down ~5 car Intamin train weighs- either loaded or unloaded? I'm doing a project and can't find a rough estimate anywhere?
help?
- Thread starter coasterdude_1
- Start date
coasterholic14
Roller Poster
From what I can remember, I think a regular intamin car is roughly 2 tons, so a 5 car train would be roughly 10 tons. I'm not sure how accurate that is, but it's a rough estimate to start with if nobody else knows.
Screaming Coasters
Strata Poster
As much as that?
From what I remember when I worked at Chessington.. The entire Vampire train only weighed about 4 ton... I couldn't tell you what an intamin would weigh, but I'd assume its about the same as a huge-ass vampire train.
From what I remember when I worked at Chessington.. The entire Vampire train only weighed about 4 ton... I couldn't tell you what an intamin would weigh, but I'd assume its about the same as a huge-ass vampire train.
coasterholic14
Roller Poster
I was basing that on several things:
This link suggests that the trains on Kanonen (though not quite the same) are 8 tons (4 cars) - http://www.coastersandmore.de/rides/kan ... _eng.shtml
This one suggests MF is 19 tons (9 cars) - http://134.71.196.75/oldprojects/421w20 ... 20page.htm
Says Thorpe Park's Stealth is a 10 ton train (5 cars) - http://forum.maniahub.com/topic/2812-th ... entry30347
Based on what I found on those links and a couple others, they seem to suggest (or guess) roughly 2 tons per car.
This link suggests that the trains on Kanonen (though not quite the same) are 8 tons (4 cars) - http://www.coastersandmore.de/rides/kan ... _eng.shtml
This one suggests MF is 19 tons (9 cars) - http://134.71.196.75/oldprojects/421w20 ... 20page.htm
Says Thorpe Park's Stealth is a 10 ton train (5 cars) - http://forum.maniahub.com/topic/2812-th ... entry30347
Based on what I found on those links and a couple others, they seem to suggest (or guess) roughly 2 tons per car.
Screaming Coasters
Strata Poster
I think they have been overly exaggerated by enthusiasts, just to look cool.
Ingested Banjo
Mega Poster
This is just a suggestion, but could they have packed more weight into the cars to give them more momentum, as well as therefore reducing the proportional difference in weight between a train of kids and a train of heavy adults?
If not, they're just a steel box with seats, so yeah they would weigh far less than a car which needs an engine, a roof, gearbox etc.
If not, they're just a steel box with seats, so yeah they would weigh far less than a car which needs an engine, a roof, gearbox etc.
^Whilst this is true, I can't image a coaster bogey is a lightweight item.
As for weighting the trains, not sure, they may do to balance them more evenly, but I can't see them adding weight for the sake of it. The train will be designed to run the layout empty (ie, lowest weight) and full (ie. max. weight in the train, plus a bit for safety purposes). I'd be surprised if they added weight to bring the proportion down.
As for weighting the trains, not sure, they may do to balance them more evenly, but I can't see them adding weight for the sake of it. The train will be designed to run the layout empty (ie, lowest weight) and full (ie. max. weight in the train, plus a bit for safety purposes). I'd be surprised if they added weight to bring the proportion down.
Ingested Banjo
Mega Poster
What's a coaster bogey? I'm guessing it snot what I think it is...
And if there was a smaller proportion in weight difference, then the speed would be more consistent. Also, the more weighty the train, the less it will be affected by wind and other variables... I guess the downside to adding weight is more energy needed on each run...
You said that the coaster will be designed to run empty and full, but possibly part of the design itself would be a weight in the cars. I don't mean that they'd add more weight after they already know it will complete the circuit full and empty.
After a brief search on the internet, I can't find anything, but I know from experience that I go slightly faster down hill on a cycle than my lighter friend. XD
And if there was a smaller proportion in weight difference, then the speed would be more consistent. Also, the more weighty the train, the less it will be affected by wind and other variables... I guess the downside to adding weight is more energy needed on each run...
You said that the coaster will be designed to run empty and full, but possibly part of the design itself would be a weight in the cars. I don't mean that they'd add more weight after they already know it will complete the circuit full and empty.
After a brief search on the internet, I can't find anything, but I know from experience that I go slightly faster down hill on a cycle than my lighter friend. XD
^I assume you've got a basic knowledge of friction and components of forces on slopes. Often the reason you go faster is because you've got a larger force down the hill whilst your friction force isn't significantly bigger than that of your friend. I would go into it a bit further, as I suspect it's a bit more complex than that and I've never really looked too far into the mechanics of it, however I might have a look at that now.
What I meant was that I'd be surprised if they added weight to reduce the proportions. It would seem more likely that they'd design the coaster to run on the two extremes and just accept that it's likely to run slower/faster on different runs. Added weight also increases the frictional forces, which wouldn't help the train run. They can't account for winds, weather conditions, so they design within reasonable boundaries, that'd also take into account weighting and position of weighting (almost centre of mass).
It's the wheel assembly stuff:
That one is from a railway train. You'll get the idea from that. If someone wants to give a more detailed explanation they can.
What I meant was that I'd be surprised if they added weight to reduce the proportions. It would seem more likely that they'd design the coaster to run on the two extremes and just accept that it's likely to run slower/faster on different runs. Added weight also increases the frictional forces, which wouldn't help the train run. They can't account for winds, weather conditions, so they design within reasonable boundaries, that'd also take into account weighting and position of weighting (almost centre of mass).
I think it should be spelt BOGIE, sorry!
It's the wheel assembly stuff:
That one is from a railway train. You'll get the idea from that. If someone wants to give a more detailed explanation they can.
Ingested Banjo
Mega Poster
Ok cheers - Think I get what it is now - basically the bit which attaches the wheels to the chassis?
I never really got why I go down the hill faster than my friend, sure I have more of a force, but it's a basic mechanical principle that objects of different masses fall to earth at almost the same speed (unless they are very massive in relation to the mass of the earth, and also discounting air resistance) so surely because of the increased friction, I should accelerate more slowly than my friend... It could be because I have a bike designed more for speed, but I think it used to happen with my older mountain mike as well... oh well a bit of a tangent to the topic...
If the coaster is not powered, I don't understand why you'd need to centre the mass?
You mentioned that more weight usually = more friction, but that would be balanced by more momentum, although that again would have the downside of requiring more energy to lift each time, and more energy being wasted in the brake run.
I dunno, I just swear I heard somewhere about oblivion's trains being weighted to make sure it wouldn't valley in the pit... I'm probably wrong though. I guess if the train does weigh as much as a car does, human weight is already pretty small in comparison.
I never really got why I go down the hill faster than my friend, sure I have more of a force, but it's a basic mechanical principle that objects of different masses fall to earth at almost the same speed (unless they are very massive in relation to the mass of the earth, and also discounting air resistance) so surely because of the increased friction, I should accelerate more slowly than my friend... It could be because I have a bike designed more for speed, but I think it used to happen with my older mountain mike as well... oh well a bit of a tangent to the topic...
If the coaster is not powered, I don't understand why you'd need to centre the mass?
You mentioned that more weight usually = more friction, but that would be balanced by more momentum, although that again would have the downside of requiring more energy to lift each time, and more energy being wasted in the brake run.
I dunno, I just swear I heard somewhere about oblivion's trains being weighted to make sure it wouldn't valley in the pit... I'm probably wrong though. I guess if the train does weigh as much as a car does, human weight is already pretty small in comparison.
Ingested Banjo
Mega Poster
Double post
coasterholic14
Roller Poster
Really, these trains/cars are a LOT heavier than you might think...there are a lot more metal/steel components on coaster trains than on cars, which have a lot of fiberglass and such to lighten them. The wheel assemblies themselves are quite massive and quite heavy because they have to be extremely durable, combine that with a lot of other parts that are built big, heavy, strong, etc. and you get quite a heavy vehicle. It wouldn't surprise me if they were in the range of 1.5-2 tons...there's a lot you don't see on them.
To answer your question why you go down the hill faster than your friend...it's the same principle that applies to racing coasters, the heavier train wins. The reason is because, while the frictional force (acting against you) is higher for higher loads, you also have a higher downard force (force = mass*gravity), so IDEALLY, you should go the same speed, but realistically you don't. The reason you don't though is mostly because of air resistance and momentum. Heavier objects carry much more momentum/inertia and therefore aren't slowed down as much by friction/air resistance.
To answer your question why you go down the hill faster than your friend...it's the same principle that applies to racing coasters, the heavier train wins. The reason is because, while the frictional force (acting against you) is higher for higher loads, you also have a higher downard force (force = mass*gravity), so IDEALLY, you should go the same speed, but realistically you don't. The reason you don't though is mostly because of air resistance and momentum. Heavier objects carry much more momentum/inertia and therefore aren't slowed down as much by friction/air resistance.
^Whilst I see your argument for the increased force on the biker, I don't think it's quite right. Disclaimer: I know these are simplified models, they're just an example.
If you look at this picture, it is quite clear that the 'm' term cancels:
mgsinΘ=component of force down slope
μmgcosΘ=max. frictional force
I can't see any incorrect statement in that. I know it doesn't include air-resistance etc, but it's a simple model.
This model explains the problem using moments. Here the 'mg' term should read force. I understand that the force would be distributed between the wheels and that the force on the front fork would not be 'mg'.
This model includes a term which is dependent on the mass. As I'm sure you'll know, the moment would act as a turning force, therefore a larger turning force would equal a larger gain in speed (in a roundabout sort of way).
I hope this is right, it seems pretty logical, but I'm not afraid to admit I'm wrong, so if anyone can correct me, then feel free.
If you look at this picture, it is quite clear that the 'm' term cancels:
mgsinΘ=component of force down slope
μmgcosΘ=max. frictional force
I can't see any incorrect statement in that. I know it doesn't include air-resistance etc, but it's a simple model.
This model explains the problem using moments. Here the 'mg' term should read force. I understand that the force would be distributed between the wheels and that the force on the front fork would not be 'mg'.
This model includes a term which is dependent on the mass. As I'm sure you'll know, the moment would act as a turning force, therefore a larger turning force would equal a larger gain in speed (in a roundabout sort of way).
I hope this is right, it seems pretty logical, but I'm not afraid to admit I'm wrong, so if anyone can correct me, then feel free.
I mean that the train will still be able to crest the hills with all the mass in the back of the train (ie. four fat riders in the last car) or however the mass is distributed throughout the train.
Ingested Banjo
Mega Poster
I've never been any good at mechanics... but I want to take mechanical engineering at uni... best start revising!
^^I think air resistance is where the differences are. The force working on an object is mass multiplied by acceleration, while friction depends on speed and surface on which the friction works, not mass. So with a large mass and an average surface area, you will get plenty of forces while the friction has little to say, but if you're light with a still not much smaller surface area, you'll get less forces to accelerate you, but the same amount of air resistance to slow you down.
I think.
I think.
I think you're pretty much right Hixee.
The top diagram is both simplified and wrong because it is assuming two flat surfaces are next to each other, when in fact it is rolling meaning that different rules will apply, as you have shown with the second diagram.
I don't know how much air resistance comes into it really. The nly time air resistance will make a difference is:
1. A really fat person sits at the front, causing a larger surface area for drag. In this case though, I'd imagine the weight of the fat person would go some way to cancelling out that added resistance.
2. One load of people is significantly heavier than another. Again though, I don't think this would really matter, because compared to the train itself, whose weight is in the tonnes, the people wont make enough difference for it to show hugely.
Of course, what I say applies only to coaster trains, and I admit the thing with the bikes has got me a bit. I have rambled on for too long now, and have probably made lots of mistakes, feel free to pick them out.
EDIT - Pokemanic, friction does depend on weight. It's calculated as "coefficient of friction X Normal reaction", and normal reaction is the weight of the object (mass X gravitational field strength). The heavier it is, the more friction it has.
The top diagram is both simplified and wrong because it is assuming two flat surfaces are next to each other, when in fact it is rolling meaning that different rules will apply, as you have shown with the second diagram.
I don't know how much air resistance comes into it really. The nly time air resistance will make a difference is:
1. A really fat person sits at the front, causing a larger surface area for drag. In this case though, I'd imagine the weight of the fat person would go some way to cancelling out that added resistance.
2. One load of people is significantly heavier than another. Again though, I don't think this would really matter, because compared to the train itself, whose weight is in the tonnes, the people wont make enough difference for it to show hugely.
Of course, what I say applies only to coaster trains, and I admit the thing with the bikes has got me a bit. I have rambled on for too long now, and have probably made lots of mistakes, feel free to pick them out.
EDIT - Pokemanic, friction does depend on weight. It's calculated as "coefficient of friction X Normal reaction", and normal reaction is the weight of the object (mass X gravitational field strength). The heavier it is, the more friction it has.
jayjay
Giga Poster
I reckon air resistance has a bigger part than you might think. Basically, ignoring surface friction, heavier trains would fall faster. If you think about forces acting on the train, the net force is (weight component)-(air resistance). If you divide terms by mass to get acceleration, you get (component of g)-(air resistance)/mass). So, a train falling would experience more acceleration if it were heavier, since for the same speed, acceleration is constant. Adding friction back in makes it more complex and I wouldn't understand it, so maybe air resistance has a greater effect than friction.
coasterholic14
Roller Poster
You have that right Hixee, your diagram is basically describing what I was talking about. Ideally, weight makes no difference because it cancels out (more force down the hill, but more resistance from friction), however when it comes to carrying momentum (inertia/energy) and overcoming air resistance, heavier wins.
Air resistance is based on surface area and air density, so if the force acting against the air is much larger without a significant increase in surface area (relative to one another) the air is acting upon, then their is less force acting against that object. Drop a ping pong ball and a golf ball (roughly the same size), ideally, both should drop at the same rate and hit the ground at the same time (like in your diagram, mass cancels and makes no difference), but they don't because of air resistance. It wouldn't seem like air resistance would have a large affect, but it really does, and the same principle applies to racing roller coasters, coasting downhill on a bike, etc. More mass = more momementum = more energy.
Air resistance is based on surface area and air density, so if the force acting against the air is much larger without a significant increase in surface area (relative to one another) the air is acting upon, then their is less force acting against that object. Drop a ping pong ball and a golf ball (roughly the same size), ideally, both should drop at the same rate and hit the ground at the same time (like in your diagram, mass cancels and makes no difference), but they don't because of air resistance. It wouldn't seem like air resistance would have a large affect, but it really does, and the same principle applies to racing roller coasters, coasting downhill on a bike, etc. More mass = more momementum = more energy.