|
|
| Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'' (1170813) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'' |
|
|
Posted by Bill West on Sun Aug 5 17:16:55 2012, in response to NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with "Multilevel Power Cars", posted by Olog-hai on Sat Aug 4 18:39:29 2012. I’m surprised nobody has commented on what’s under the exact center of that DD-AR. It’s enough of a difference for an MPC and 5 trailers to achieve the same tractive effort as 3 pairs of married MUs that use only one motor truck per pair.I don’t think this is an MU versus loco hauled issue nor a comparison of their relative seating capacities. I think it is nothing more than putting seats in a modest HP locomotive to add a bit to the train capacity. It will challenge what rules differences there may be between locos and MUs. I can’t see an advantage to 2 six car sets of MPC over 12 MLVs and a loco but where shorter trains are normally sufficient there might be some advantages. Other points: -the lower HP per ”loco” will carry a price premium. Two 3500hp propulsion packages will cost 1/3 to 1/2 more than one 7000hp package. -Check your physics Olag, weight on drivers is EVERYTHING in the maximum TE department. And PRR considered that 1.93% grade serious enough to require an acceptance test on it when they wrote specs for the DD-1 to be able to start a 10 car train there. -dual voltage transformers just need a small motorized switch in the tank or a second vacuum circuit breaker. It would take no more than a 24” cube weighing less than 500 pounds. -there’s no advantage to MU couplers over AARs here because there would still be HEP connections to make each time. M7s, M8s, etc avoid this because each car has its own access to the third rail or catenary. Bill |
|
|
|