 |
Re: New Bart Cars found to be too heavy
Author: Dr Zarkoff
Date: 02-22-2017 - 11:41
>For those who buy into the standard gauge cars will get blown over in a strong wind BART broad gauge cover story,
I've heard the crosswind "theory", if that's what you insist on calling it, from the very beginning from friends who worked at BARTD. Documenting it would probably require sifting through some 15-25 completely full filing cabinets, which I don't really have the time (nor inclination) to do. Regardless, your fixation about the SP insisting on the adoption of the gauge is merely and urban legend, "fake news".
Even if BARTD had adopted standard gauge, the SP "pre-empting the transbay tube for it's freight operation" is an even greater flight of fancy. What would you use for locomotives? How many freight cars would fit inside the tube? Besides, at the time, the SP's freight operations to SF were rapidly declining (I should know because I suffered degradations in seniority because of it).
Since when can a private corporation pre-empt a governmental agency? Talk about tinfoil hats, wire coat hangers under the bed, and little silver men in their advance bases on the far side of the moon, lay off the wacky tabacky.
>why not a blinking monorail instead of Bechtel's mind-boggling "supported duorail".
Virtually all the railroads which have ever been built in the US are "supported duorail". It's the level of cute-ness factor in the label that's makes one shake his head. What is truly "mind-boggling" is the extent of the adoption of supported duorail throughout the entire world.
>For those who buy into the standard gauge cars will get blown over in a strong wind BART broad gauge cover story,
Haven't there been recent news reports of freight trains being blown over by crosswinds? Oh, no, never mind, those were fake news too.
>why not a blinking monorail . . . Why not? Simple answer:
The costs and practicalities of building switches in the "track".
>80mph? Like any decent interurban BART was capable of more than that. I rode it the first week of operations in the Eastbay. You could walk up to the operator's cabin and look at the digital speedometer and see 99-100-101.
I recall those days, but I don't recall speeds quite that high. At the time the fastest sections of BARTD were between Fruitvale and Lake Merritt.
>I guess just to show off BART at its best. All downhill from there. As I recall hearing the Garrett motors tended to arc, worse at high speed.
BARTD's first generation traction motors were Westinghouse PCC motors adapted for use on 1000v. These are (or were) series-wound motors, and at the speeds BARTD planned to operate, the motors spun at very close to if not exceeding the maximum safe commutating speed of about 3,000 fps. The results are usually flashovers. At one point, shortly before starting service, "they" decided to see how fast a train could go. At something like 110 mph, all the motors in the train flashed over (ISTR it was only a two or three car test train). That story came from a friend who worked in the Hayward shops at the time.
I've heard the crosswind "theory", if that's what you insist on calling it, from the very beginning from friends who worked at BARTD. Documenting it would probably require sifting through some 15-25 completely full filing cabinets, which I don't really have the time (nor inclination) to do. Regardless, your fixation about the SP insisting on the adoption of the gauge is merely and urban legend, "fake news".
Even if BARTD had adopted standard gauge, the SP "pre-empting the transbay tube for it's freight operation" is an even greater flight of fancy. What would you use for locomotives? How many freight cars would fit inside the tube? Besides, at the time, the SP's freight operations to SF were rapidly declining (I should know because I suffered degradations in seniority because of it).
Since when can a private corporation pre-empt a governmental agency? Talk about tinfoil hats, wire coat hangers under the bed, and little silver men in their advance bases on the far side of the moon, lay off the wacky tabacky.
>why not a blinking monorail instead of Bechtel's mind-boggling "supported duorail".
Virtually all the railroads which have ever been built in the US are "supported duorail". It's the level of cute-ness factor in the label that's makes one shake his head. What is truly "mind-boggling" is the extent of the adoption of supported duorail throughout the entire world.
>For those who buy into the standard gauge cars will get blown over in a strong wind BART broad gauge cover story,
Haven't there been recent news reports of freight trains being blown over by crosswinds? Oh, no, never mind, those were fake news too.
>why not a blinking monorail . . . Why not? Simple answer:
The costs and practicalities of building switches in the "track".
>80mph? Like any decent interurban BART was capable of more than that. I rode it the first week of operations in the Eastbay. You could walk up to the operator's cabin and look at the digital speedometer and see 99-100-101.
I recall those days, but I don't recall speeds quite that high. At the time the fastest sections of BARTD were between Fruitvale and Lake Merritt.
>I guess just to show off BART at its best. All downhill from there. As I recall hearing the Garrett motors tended to arc, worse at high speed.
BARTD's first generation traction motors were Westinghouse PCC motors adapted for use on 1000v. These are (or were) series-wound motors, and at the speeds BARTD planned to operate, the motors spun at very close to if not exceeding the maximum safe commutating speed of about 3,000 fps. The results are usually flashovers. At one point, shortly before starting service, "they" decided to see how fast a train could go. At something like 110 mph, all the motors in the train flashed over (ISTR it was only a two or three car test train). That story came from a friend who worked in the Hayward shops at the time.
