From: gl4317@yahoo.com   
      
   In article ,   
    Stephen Sprunk  wrote:   
      
   > Even ignoring the volume issue, though, would there be enough savings in   
   > cost/weight to make it a better option than a 2240kW (3000hp) loco at   
   > one end and an unpowered unit at the other?  That cuts maintenance costs   
   > nearly in half, though possibly at the expense of reliability.   
      
      
   It does increase maintenance, but then there are quite a large number of   
   operations out there worldwide that use DMUs, where multiple engines per   
   train are quite common.   
      
   However, if it is not desirable, then at the very least a proper cab car   
   could be used.  Even a Bombardier multi-level weighs less than a   
   concrete-filled F40.  There should be a better option out there than   
   that.   
      
   --   
   Please note this e-mail address is a pit of spam due to e-mail address   
   harvesters on Usenet. Response time to e-mail sent here is slow.   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)