[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: "Day of the Roses"

To: Lambing Flat <"BullaCk"@(nospam)cia.com.au>
Subject: Re: "Day of the Roses"
From: David Johnson <trainman@ozemail.com.au>
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 01:55:05 +1100
Newsgroups: aus.rail, aus.tv
References: <362AE59E.4872E00B@hermes.net.au> <01bdfb40$6dbb1da0$0d9c0ccb@jen-s-computer> <362D3ACB.DF6FC323@eisa.net.au> <363cc419.19351830@news.ozemail.com.au> <3638391a.11771956@news.ihug.co.nz> <3638512C.869F2CEF@ozemail.com.au> <36390dab.0@news>
Reply-To: trainman@ozemail.com.au
Xref: news.mel.aone.net.au aus.rail:34810 aus.tv:69021

Lambing Flat wrote:

> I have to agree with Albert, between 1977 and 1989, when I used to see
> quite a lot of 46s, I never once saw a single unit that didn't have both
> pans raised, and if there was more than one on the train, they only had one
> pan each raised.  I asked a driver about it once and he said it had
> something to do with the "airgaps" in the overhead.

It was more to do with "lifting" the overhead.  Pantographs exert an upwards
force on the contact wire, causing it to lift.  The more pantographs, the
greater the lift.  This becomes a bigger problem on long straights where the
supports are further apart, as too many raised pantographs could cause
significant problems.

--
David Johnson
CityRail Guard
trainman@ozemail.com.au
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~trainman/

Follow-Ups:
- Re: "Day of the Roses"
  - From: Lambing Flat <"BullaCk"@(nospam)cia.com.au>

References:
- Re: "Day of the Roses"
  - From: kingpin1@ozemail.com.au (Derek Woodlands)
- Re: "Day of the Roses"
  - From: alberta@zip.com.au (Albert Alcoceba)
- Re: "Day of the Roses"
  - From: David Johnson <trainman@ozemail.com.au>
- Re: "Day of the Roses"
  - From: Lambing Flat <"BullaCk"@(nospam)cia.com.au>

Prev by Date: Re: WA Trams
Next by Date: Re: Info Request - Bus Lanes Design / Operation
Prev by thread: Re: "Day of the Roses"
Next by thread: Re: "Day of the Roses"
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread