Re: Electric Cars Not Yet Viable

Not sure why you think that (there are batteries with slurry electrodes, you can pump uncharged out, and pump charged in), but there are other options: for a tractor/trailer, swap tractors.

Remember the Pony Express!

lectric motor are better adapted to providing the necessary torque at the w heels over the wide range of rotation rates needed.

n out of the train save enough - in reduced load to be shifted - to pay for the overhead wiring along the whole lenght of the track.

ack - makes electrification more attractive, because it is a a one-off cost , and you have to lug power generating unit along with every load you shift .

ho will pay to use the train, or shift freight on it.

Germany - but it's average per capita income is a whole lot lower.

d they save money on every train trip. Lugging the diesel part of a diesel electric locomotive around costs money on every trip, and the overhead wire s save that on every trip.

s not an important factor in trains. In fact, they used to use "Bud" cars on a local line which had a motor in every car! Talk about weight ineffici ent. Clearly the railroad doesn't care.

That is the point of contention. In fact, in some cases the engine doesn't have enough weight to start up cleanly and the traction wheels spin.

Here is a cite that indicates a modification increased the pulling power of an engine because of the added "weight".

Face it, you are wrong about this.

Bill Sloman wrote in news:f90711e9-2cee-412c- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

You are incorrect. It did no such thing.

Fuck off.

What is the point of creating kilometers long trains with multiple locomotives, other than save in train driver wages ?

The benefit of a train is that the air resistance is affected only once, while each truck on a motorway suffer from the air resistance. The air resistance is proportional to frontal surface area and proportional to speed squared. For slow freight trains the air resistance wouldn't even be significant.

The rolling resistance for each truck is the same regardless if the trucks are connected or have a distance of 100 m to the next truck.

Long freight trains have a low acceleration and low top speed, so this will cause problem for the faster passenger trains.

Bill Sloman wrote in news:2773d7d9-35e9-41b8- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

You are an idiot.

Cities allow road cars.

Mine WILL NOT.

YOU DO NOT GET IT.

It is not ANYTHING like current city layout.

bly mined from your rather-less-than creative imagination.

ed railway system makes a lot more sense.

practical before containers were invented, and America missed that particu lar boat.

er and a friend is a buyer of food goods which are nearly always trucked ra ther than deal with the problems of railroad freight.

So the US never got around to making it's railways work reliably or predict ably. Other countries have done better.

large loads. Then there is the need to coordinate truck hauling at each e nd.

The delivery time are only long and unpredictable if there isn't enough tra ffic to support frequent trains running on a regular schedule. The requirem ent for a "large load" is built into the idea of shipping stuff in standard sized containers.

Coordinating truck haulage at either end is easier if the rail network has lots of nodes so the end hauls are short.

use it is a PITA mostly. Trucking is a bit more expensive, but a lot less hassle and in most cases the only real option because of scheduling issues. One week vs. two or more weeks is a big deal.

If the railway system is rudimentary, it won't get used much.

uling issues prevent Musk from ramping up deliveries at the end of the quar ters, so he wanted to build his own trailers... lol

Maybe he wants to become an electric railway tycoon.

The obvious answer, is as many as one wants. Trains are modular, you just slave together the engines and put one every thirty cars or so...

But, one doesn't usually want to load/unload a stopped train that spreads for miles; the loading dock isn't that long.

Sort of. Moving so slowly, and at such a high price, that you are better off walking.

What do I care how your fantasy city might work?

Your silly ideas are happily non-contagious

So a free-form fantasy. Even less useful than one with some vague connection to reality.

Rick C wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

Idiot. A "semi" is the trailer, not the tractor.

And the tractor criteria is exactly as I stated, because ALL thos drivers you claim to know anything about do not want additional stops or reduced pulling power. They want LESS stops and equal or MORE pulling power.

So all these petty less than robust ideas suck, because the criteria I gave IS the reqisite the drivers want.

Here, ya dope:

Minimum.

Axle loading has to be low too, as some places charge for high axle loads. So the truck itself is heavier, and costs more to drive as the individual axle weights are higher.

Drivers and fleet owners do not like that either.

So 60k load and 1000 mile per segment runs between "fueling needs".

So... try again. My criteria is likely weaker even than the drivers want.

Weaker truck "solutions" are not solutions at all. So my criteria is likely the minimum of what drivers want.

Rick C wrote in news:a080b026-5b18- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

Why are you like Sloturd, making retarded assumptions about what I may or may not know, much less what I may or may not have learned.

Maybe you need to stop talking with the Sloturd, because his stupidity is rubbing off on you, and you make statements that run along the same stupidity level as he does.

Oh and deny what, dipshit? Now it appears that you cannot even make a proper post because I do not know what you are failing to declare that I missed. You fail to author a post that has discernable content, because I do not know what the f*ck you are talking about me denying.

Rick C wrote in news:a080b026-5b18- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

break.

Bullshit.

First, it has to match hauling performance, THEN the charging period requisite gets looked at.

Currently they do not perform load hauling at the same level as diesel tractors in any way shape or form.

When they can, we can re-examine battery pack size and charge times.

It certainly will not be something that charges during a break. Not even during the 4 hour break that drivers are required to take here. Likely not even during an overnight break.

Just think... 50 drivers of ETrucks all at the truck stop getting fast charged... How many megawatt hours do you think the truck stop would be pulling?

Sorry folks... But it's gonna be a while yet.

Bill Sloman wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

You are an idiot. Literally thousands of trailers are moving across our nation right now... on train cars.

The boat of intelligence is what SloTurd missed. And the stench is too much.

Already said f*ck off and die before, but we're done, punk.

Bill Sloman wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

I drew mag lev trains in drafting class back in the seventies. You are stupid, presumptuous, and self impotent. Look where that got you.

Rick C wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

You have people movers.

The US freight railway system is not the BART system.

We have PASSENGER lines in the US with overhead electrical feeds. I did not see any freight movers, and none with 2 mile long hauls.

And the web is full of folks talking about how it is a bad idea. And there would certainly be many more deaths in the US as a result.

A guy in San Diego got nailed dead by a rail feed line shorted to the bus stop bench he was sitting at. Seems they do not know how to get from the ground transformers up to the overheads very well.

Again... that is just people mover level lines.

The 'rail grid' requirements and infrastructure are simply too great to overcome, because WE here in the US actually DO care about public safety.

Tens of thousands of miles of HV overheads ain't gonna ever cut it.

We will likely end up on mag lev for some things like a new fast train (and line) for people between major stops.

Freight is gonna be on diesel electric for quite a while in the US, and overhead electric will never be realized here because it is a non-goal from the start and not enough of a carbon footprint gain to even make a difference.

You all cry about how IC engines are so inefficient.

The diesel electric locomotive is one of the most efficient ground propulsion methods for IC there is. Always at optimal. Some waste, but not like a passenger car being pushed by a hemi, when electric IS better as footprint goes... for little cars. For REAL loads, we ain't there yet.

Bill Sloman wrote in news:a8d5505b-c5a3-432c- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

Which is where you fail, because 2 mile long trains are way bigger loading than the weight of the locomotive does not matter at all.

Clearly you have no grasp of any kind of bigger picture.

If the driver is allowed to drive 10 hours before a long rest period a battery capacity of 1600 kWh would be required at that speed

Are trucks allowed to drive at that speed in the US ?. With a more realistic speed and required shorter coffee brakes during the day, a more realistic required battery capacity would be 1000 kWh.

You don't really have any info on any of this, do you? What is the current rating of electric trucks? Do you have inside info from Tesla or others?

Bill Sloman wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

There are plenty of analyses.

LNG and CNG are no more efficient. We are not getting ANYTHING from the grid and we are NOT building ANY overhead power feeds for that purpose.

YOU must work within what there is.

Next thing you'll be trying to say we should run underwater HV lines so that diesel electric ships and submarines (and nuke powered) can hook up.

You seem to think that sourcing that level of electrical power is trivial. The entire grid would have to be rebuilt just to support it. It already leaks at a 15% rate now. A full rebuild is required, much less adding a railway infrasructure to that. It is simply not feasible at this time. The US has other elements of its base and economy to upgrade first. Namely our standard of living. That has taken the biggest hit. And if we did rebuild the grid it would likely not be also for the additional need of a connected railway system.