wrote:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 14:02:09 +0100
Recliner wrote:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 12:50:08 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 08:35:54 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 00:44:06 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
with making the power packs compatible with a rail traction environment.
Fascinating.
Yes, and they'd clearly not put enough effort into the task. Vivarail seem
to have tried to simply outsource the whole power pack to a local firm,
which obviously bodged it. The proven Ford engine may be up to the job,
but
Proven on the road maybe. Pulling a 2 ton flatbed on the road is completely
different to working as a generator.
In what way, exactly?
Stop trolling.
Trolling? You're very good at asking questions, but you're rather
short on answers. Here's your chance to explain exactly why a Class
What question did I ask exactly?
230 duty cycle will be more onerous than white van man thrashing it
all day.
Van man will only be thrashing it for an hour or 2 each day. The rest of the
time it'll be parked up outside the building site or wherever. It won't be
trying to accelerate and maintain the speed of 10 tons of carriage most of
the day then spend the rest of its time idling since apparently train drivers
don't know where the off switch is it would seem. This isn't a static generator
generating a constant 240V at a constant RPM, its got a duty cycle and it'll
be a hard one for a small road vehicle engine.
Train engines work hard to get the train up to crusing speed (60 mph for
these trains). That takes a few minutes. The rest of the time they're
producing very little power. The engines will cut out automatically when
power isn't needed, just as road vehicles do.