From: cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca
On Tue, 3 Jun 2014 01:58:12 -0700 (PDT), rcp27g@gmail.com wrote:
>On Tuesday, 3 June 2014 04:19:01 UTC+2, Glen Labah wrote:
>> In article ,
>> Clark F Morris wrote:
>>
>> > relatively flat terrain. Could they be allowed higher speeds in the
>> > curves because of the lower weight and forces on the track/ This
>> > experiment could lead to better locomotives for higher speed
>> > equipment.
>>
>> E units are still in the 315,000 lbs range.
>>
>> What we need is someone to write a set of specifications that really
>> pushes the envelope a little. The current method of looking at what has
>> been done in the past, and then setting the sights too low based on
>> that, isn't getting us particularly great equipment.
>
>If an E unit is your baseline (2400 hp in 140 tons), then you don't need to
go very far to do an awful lot better. The British HST power cars from the
1970s had approximately the same installed power in half the weight (2250 hp
in 70 tons). The Class
67 from the late 1990s manages 3200 hp in 90 tons. In both cases, these are
designed for 125 mph. The Class 68 Eurolight being deliverd today in the UK
has 3800 hp in 85 tons (though only rated for 100 mph). These are all 4 axle
locomotives.
The advantage of the E unit is that it exists TODAY, has passenger
gearing, is easier on the tracks than other US locomotives and can be
run in the US without special permission. For new service, I would
like any of the above mentioned locomotives but they would get heavier
(see the new Siemens locomotives for Midwest high speed) due to the
FRA. I didn't realize it was 140 tons. The 6 axles are the saving
grace for the purpose of lower forces on the curves an the ride was
said to be excellent.
Clark Morris
>
>Robin
--- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
* Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)
|
