> They have a similar
> type of setup on diesel powered trains where the diesel engine just
> produces electricity on a generator that provides power to the
> electric motors. That is they were smart enough to not have the fossil
> fuel powered engine directly drive the vehicle.
>
>
Now you've gone and brought trains into it. The reason that they use
electric motors on trains is that it is easier to get more power to the
rails because:
o You can power all of the wheels without crazy transmission
linkages allowing for more wheels on each truck
o It is easier to maintain a short gear trains which improves
reliability
o It is easy to couple the computers for multi-headed running (so
hard to do with direct drive - requires at least double the staff)
o It is easier to control the torque, and it's all there at startup
when it is needed the most. Steam is the same way - which is why it
lasted so long.
Direct drive mainline locomotives would be an engineering and
maintenance nightmare... There are a number of switching locomotives
that are direct drive though.
Don't get me wrong, I love the concept - but to claim that it is getting
100mpg is like saying that the EV-1 gets infinite mileage. While
technically true, It's just a bit misleading. :) To say that the
performance is the same after the batteries are exhausted doesn't make
sense. Those stupid trade-offs get me every time. :) Someone invent
the $10K EV with 100 mile range and I'll rent a car for long trips.
-Peter
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
Don't fear the penguin.
*/
