I'm not sure I see the need for MUs vs Powered Ends for NEC (at least anything above regional).https://twitter.com/380kmh/status/943229191239200770 …
-
-
Replying to @PWilliamKitty
reduced track maintenance costs + better travel times thru better acceleration/deceleration
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
Eh, the marginal improvement from axle weight w/r/t maintenance is a tough sell. Can't argue on the distributed power plant though.
#BringbackRDCs1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PWilliamKitty
it literally stacks every year, how is it a hard sell
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
Because you’re not really reducing the weight on rails by a significant margin, unless you’re planning on running more trainsets, in which, yeah it becomes a factor.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PWilliamKitty
More trainsets, yes. And yes, the weight wouldn't change much without a change in our ill-conceived crash safety regulations, but this is more about the number of powered axles that are gripping the track
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
distributed traction is a huge advantage, it's part of why Japan started switching to EMUs and DMUs even for intercity trains as early as 1958
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.