Re: Alternatively powered train

[John Wilson <wilsonjohn@home.com>]

David S wrote:
> 
> At the point in the space/time continuum known as Tue, 20 Oct 1998 01:51:59
> GMT, the state of the universe as viewed by John Wilson
> <wilsonjohn@home.com> was thus:
> 
> >a New York Central third-rail electric / battery locomotive for
> >switching on the West Side Line in New York City, where the batteries
> >allowed it to go off the main tracks on sidings with no third rail.
> 
> Chicago North Shore & Milwaukee also had units like this, for spurs with no
> overhead wire. From what I've heard, even with a full charge on the
> batteries, they had a very short range. (I wonder how they'd do with modern
> battery technology...)

Not much better. For the needed combination of low cost, high energy
density, physical ruggedness, safety, required operating environment,
and so forth, nobody has come up with a better alternative than the
lead-acid battery. While there have been incremental improvements in
battery life and capacity, lead-acid is still the best practical
alternative for most large-scale uses. The developmental exotic battery
technologies all get improvements in some characteristic, usually energy
density, while blowing themselves out of contention on some other
characteristic, usually cost and sometimes also operating environment
and/or safety.

This is why we're not driving electric cars.
> 
> David Streeter
> --
> opinions expressed are probably not those of
> Little "Q" Model Railroad Club
> Aurora, Illinois
> http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/8114/littleq.html
> -----> PLEASE NOTE: I HAVE A NEW EMAIL ADDRESS <-----
> if replying by both newsgroup post and email, please say so
> "Take nothing but pictures, leave nothing but footprints."